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
Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man
Options
Comments
-
If redoing the referendum is their solution, then they are ignoring democracy. Like it or not (personally, I hate it), we voted no to Lisbon. If the EU imposes Lisbon, regardless of the referendum vote then they are not respecting the wishes of one portion of their citizens.oscarBravo wrote: »It's a serious question, and one I'd like to see answered seriously. If the attitude is that our "no" vote is the EU's problem, then we can't really complain if the EU does what it feels is necessary to solve that problem, even if it doesn't suit us.
The question was already answered.oscarBravo wrote:How in the name of the gods is anything being "forced" when we're asked a yes/no question?0 -
As some may know, I wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs two months ago outlining why I voted no. I got a nicely worded response just yesterday.
But more importantly he enclosed a copy of the Governments White Paper on the Lisbon Treaty, basically describing the Treaty and the governments position on certain aspects of it (1ecieved 10 weeks after the vote, it was published in April). Now I wonder why he did that.
Not that I mind about a second vote. If anything it shows our country is more democratic - giving us all these referenda!!0 -
Nutty satisfaction? So thats how you view people with a different opinion to your own. Nice attitude you have there. Its easy to label someone who disagrees with you a 'nutty conspiracist'.
I label you as a bit of a nut, that does not mean I label everyone I disagree with as a nut. Look a dresden8, we have very different views, but I can see a logical rational behind his argument. I see no such rationale behind yours.Am i detecting a little veiled anger?
More bemusement really. Thankfully most people don't think like you and instead apply judgement and reasoning to their thought process.I must be one of those 'stupid people' who didn't vote the right way..
I never called anyone voting 'no' for a well reasoned opinion 'stupid'. I never actually used the word stupid as I don't think it necessarily applies. People who voted no on issues which have nothing to do with the treaty should pay more attention and learn more about the issues before making a decision. Do you think this is a bad thing?Anyways i did read through your 10 points on the benefits of the e.u constitution but please give me time to retort. You are bascially saying that centralisation of power is a good thing for ireland. This is where i fundamentally disagree. But lets address the points.
1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%
Again not a good thing. How is centralisation of power and law a good thing when it halves our voting bloc and doubles other large countries such as germanys
The power is transfer from the European Commission and the Council of Europe, two EU institutions. This spreads power more evenly throughout the EU in accordance with the democratic principle of separation of powers. This does not represent any transfer of sovereignty from national states to the EU.2.The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
Yes and abolishes ireland's commissioner for five years at a time as the treaty will introduce rotatation. So if we have no seat for 5 of every 15 years we will not be able to have an effect legislation passed that will have a direct effect on us.
I don't think you have a firm understanding of what the commission does. The commission does not 'vote' on legislation or anything at all. We are not losing any voting power in the commission because voting power in the commission does not exist and never has. The commission is supposed to work on behalf of the Union as a whole and not to represent the specific interests of individual states. Each commissioner speaks for their policy area (e.g. Finance, Justice, Policing) and they meet to discuss the requirements of the EU and to frame new legislation to suit the needs of the whole EU. In addition the commissioners oversee the implementation of policy in each of their areas. It up to the Council of Europe and the European parliament to then either adopt or reject this legislation.
At the moment the Irish appointed commissioner is Charlie McCreevey. He is the commissioner for the internal market. His job is to oversee the functioning of the internal market, and has no power to be involved in any other area. He is not responsible for Irish interests alone, his role is to look after the interests of all 27 members in regards to the internal market. If the Irish government wanted to approach the commission in regards to any other issue they would not involve McCreevey, they would discuss it with the relevant commissioner. For instance if the Government wanted to discuss agricultural issues they would approach the 'Commissioner for Agriculture' who is Mariann Fischer Boel and she is from Denmark. She also does not only represent Denmark's interests but she represents ours and all 25 other members states.
The current problem with the commission is it's too large and their are not enough portfolios to go round all 27 commissioners. So they have to split portfolios (such as 'External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' should really be shared with 'Enlargement' as the two positions cover a lot of common ground) or create bogus ones (such as 'Multilingualism'). This makes it difficult to co-ordinate and cause turf wars where there are no clear lines of responsiblity.3.The Councils must meet in the open
Yes and what goes on behind closed doors will be not be discussed im sure
They MUST meet in the open. Meaning they would no longer be allowed operate behind closed doors (Excepting I think for the European Council, I must check that).4. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
The creation of a e.u military for defence and strengthening as a counter weight in the world to the united states and china. Peace keeping? Don't kid yourself in thinking merkel, sarkozy and co really care about peace keeping. E.U battlegroups was the start. Of course lisbon also means ireland will have to up its expenditure on military infrastructure to match the requirements of the other states in the e.u and given people's attitude's to military and our current military infrastructure i.e basically non existant im sure people will be only glad to fork out taxpayers money for brand new shiny jets and tanks.
We partake in EU peace keeping operations now in places like Chad, Kosovo and Lebanon. If you think we should no partake in any of these peacekeeping missions then there is a clear division of opinion and that's fine. However if you believe we should continue to carry out our proud history peacekeeping then the Lisbon treaty will allow us to better co-ordinate with our EU partners. Our defence forces can't operate abroad on they're own as they requires logistics support (i.e, transport and intelligence) and aerial/armoured support from other nations. It still remains our decision when and where we deploy and we are still restricted by the triple lock.5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
Yes the famous ghg effect which is bascially a way for new carbon laws to be passed based on emissions a priority for the e.u, why because its a new form of taxation for them on companies. Don't kid yourself thinking that the e.u really cares about the environment they didn't for years until they found out the taxation of emissions could be a very lucrative market indeed.
I don't share your presuppositions, but even if they are true is it better to do nothing?6. . Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.
Don't forget to mention that it means that data privacy laws of individuals can be abused too, for the good of the motherland..
Eh, where? Most of our data privacy laws come from the EU as out government was too incompetent to implement them on their own.Now heres some more interesting facts about lisbon
- It opens the door to the european union act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. This means that determining our own rate of taxation something which has been so important to our economic growth over the last 25 years will be taken out of our hands.
Indirect taxation is tax on goods and services such as VAT. It means we can't used a different indirect tax rate for goods manufactured in our country to those imported from outside. This has been that way ever since the common market was established and we signed up to it in 1972. It lowers trade barriers and increase trade benefiting our economy tremendously. The celtic tiger never would have existed if countries were allowed distort competition through indirect taxation. Here you can read the articles related to indirect taxation yourself.
Title VII – Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws
Section 2
Article 110
No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products. Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.
Article 111
Where products are exported to the territory of any Member State, any repayment of internal taxation shall not exceed the internal taxation imposed on them whether directly or
indirectly.
Article 112
In the case of charges other than turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation, remissions and repayments in respect of exports to other Member States may not be granted and countervailing charges in respect of imports from Member States may not be imposed unless the measures contemplated have been previously approved for a limited period by the Council on a proposal from the Commission.
Article 113
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.
http://www.iiea.com/images/managed/publications_attachments/TFEU_2008.pdf - page 48
This is also quiet separate to the myth peddled by Libertas during the campaign which had to do with corporate taxes which are direct taxes which are not a competence of the EU.- Irish law will take a backseat to european legislation and laws
The treaty stipulates that if we had voted an ammendment would be made to the irish constitution allowing european law to override irish law.
11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”
Almost identical to the current constitutional amendment.BUNREACHT NA hÉ wrote: »4.10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
It removes Communities (EC) as Lisbon fully integrates the EC with the EU so the two become essentially the same thing.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20IrelandNov2004.pdfDeath penalty - In accepting the lisbon treaty we will be accepting the european union charter which states that the death penalty will be allowed in ' cases of war, riots, upheaval'
As I already pointed out to you that is in the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). Which we signed over a decade ago. The European Court of Human Rights is in Strasbourg and it rules on the ECHR. The ECHR is an institution fo the Council of Europe (COE) which is completely separate from the EU.Again nobody has addressed this i notice you've stayed far away from this particular point because you would to present a rosy picture of englargement for us all. In fact the langauge used by many of the parties who supported the treatyis reminds me very much of communist and fascist slogans used in the past and present day. Anything for the 'greater good' does not seek to appease the individual or considers the individual even important. With that i close my argument.
I'm getting bored of this now. An objective observer will have seen every single one of your points raised completely shredded. So far you have given no evidence to back any of your claims up and I have backed mine up with references to other sources.0 -
You mean have at least 2 referenda on every proposal even if passed, just to be sure that everyone has made an informed vote?nacho libre wrote: »disregarding the usual scaremongery,
whether they(the politicians) are of good intentions, or voting yes is actually beneficial, is irrevelant, the point is if you are advocating a re-run on the basis of the electorate being misinformed, it should work both ways.
Don't be ridiculous,that would stagnate decision making.
The proper way to give a verdict is at general elections.That way you don't stagnate decision making.
As for your dismissal of my posts as scaremongery,thats more rubbish.
Do you seriously think that if Ireland continues to say no that every other country is just going to stop? Tell me another one.They'll do whats right for themselves.
It's us in the cold then.0 -
As I already pointed out to you that is in the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). Which we signed over a decade ago. The European Court of Human Rights is in Strasbourg and it rules on the ECHR. The ECHR is an institution fo the Council of Europe (COE) which is completely separate from the EU.Death penalty - In accepting the lisbon treaty we will be accepting the european union charter which states that the death penalty will be allowed in ' cases of war, riots, upheaval'
Actually I just looked it up and Ireland signed the ECHR when it first came into existence in 1950. So we have been living under that law for 58 years. I don't see anybody being put to death, do you?0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »That's not fighting the good fight, that's being a smartarse. If you don't have something of substance to contribute, don't contribute.
Nice comeback Oscar. Good to see you ripped me apart with that one.0 -
It seems to me that no amount of logic is going to persuade a no voter to vote yes, or a yes voter to vote no. The yes voters do not respect the views of the no voters, in fact they will claim anything they can to try to claim that Ireland really voted yes, because the no voters were duped, were too stupid to understand it, were drunk at the time, were drugged by the evil Libertas who were really a front for sinister american forces etc etc etc.
The claim that it's the rest of Europe for the treaty against us, and we are the odd ones out, simply won't wash. We simply don't know how many citizens of the EU want this treaty as the politicians of their countries didn't dare ask them for fear they, too, might have voted against it. That's not democracy, its a stich up. No doubt there will be those who will make clever arguments that it's more democratic not to allow one person one vote, in the Orwellian climate in which we live.0 -
It seems to me that no amount of logic is going to persuade a no voter to vote yes, or a yes voter to vote no. The yes voters do not respect the views of the no voters, in fact they will claim anything they can to try to claim that Ireland really voted yes, because the no voters were duped, were too stupid to understand it, were drunk at the time, were drugged by the evil Libertas who were really a front for sinister american forces etc etc etc.
I respect the views of plenty of no voters, such as those who are dead set against any military dimension to the EU and oppose EU peacekeeping missions. I do not respect those no voters who voted no because they are against conscription as the Lisbon treaty had nothing to do with that. If you oppose the treaty for real and not made reasons up I will respect that. If you oppose the treaty for falsehoods and conspiracies I will have a problem. Why should I respect the views of someone I know to believe in something that is just not true?The claim that it's the rest of Europe for the treaty against us, and we are the odd ones out, simply won't wash. We simply don't know how many citizens of the EU want this treaty as the politicians of their countries didn't dare ask them for fear they, too, might have voted against it. That's not democracy, its a stich up. No doubt there will be those who will make clever arguments that it's more democratic not to allow one person one vote, in the Orwellian climate in which we live.
Fair enough, I can respect that view because it is subjective and is not based on any downright lies. I don't agree with it but there are lots of things I don't agree with but respect.0 -
On another note, if I came across a yes voter who told me they were voting yes because they believed it would reunite the island, I would look at them as if they had two heads. I would not respect their beliefs because I would not see any evidence or any reasoning behind it. The fact is I haven't come across any yes voters who believed in myths. I have come across plenty of yes voters who voted yes because they trust the politicians. While it might not be the best reason to vote yes at least they don't believe in complete myths.0
-
I have come across plenty of yes voters who voted yes because they trust the politicians. While it might not be the best reason to vote yes at least they don't believe in complete myths.
Like the qualification of complete.
But, the likelihood of any second referendum succeeding won't be based on changing people's minds, (I reckon), it will be won or lost on who mobilises their apathetic non-voters from the first round better.
Or, as is quite likely, whether people want to give the government a kicking or not. That is Cowan's nightmare scenario, a second No would certainly finish him off.0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by auerillo
The claim that it's the rest of Europe for the treaty against us, and we are the odd ones out, simply won't wash. We simply don't know how many citizens of the EU want this treaty as the politicians of their countries didn't dare ask them for fear they, too, might have voted against it. That's not democracy, its a stich up. No doubt there will be those who will make clever arguments that it's more democratic not to allow one person one vote, in the Orwellian climate in which we live.
Fair enough, I can respect that view because it is subjective and is not based on any downright lies. I don't agree with it but there are lots of things I don't agree with but respect.
Out of complete curiosity, do you believe (to Sink) that the leaders of the respective countries of the EU were/are representing the majority of the people correctly and in a manner that they were elected to?
If yes to the above question, do you have a possible comment on why referendums were not held in each of those countries if the leaders truly believed they were doing the bidding of the majority? Surely if the leaders were so confident of receiving a mandate from their people, especially on a such a hot topic, they would have put it to them?0 -
-
i-bloodhound wrote: »Out of complete curiosity, do you believe (to Sink) that the leaders of the respective countries of the EU were/are representing the majority of the people correctly and in a manner that they were elected to?
Yes (with reservations).i-bloodhound wrote: »If yes to the above question, do you have a possible comment on why referendums were not held in each of those countries if the leaders truly believed they were doing the bidding of the majority? Surely if the leaders were so confident of receiving a mandate from their people, especially on a such a hot topic, they would have put it to them?
It's rather complex so bare with me.
I believe that most western democracies including ours are broken. It's not just the fault of our political leaders, it's more a fault of the general population and modern society. It has a lot to do with the politically correct, mass media, celebrity culture we now exist in. Convenience is everywhere and nobody has to think for themselves. Anyone can watch or read brief comments by opinion makers (politicians, celebrities, newspaper columnists, etc) and then believe they are properly informed. They believe they're informed enough on a subject that their opinion matters above the experts or even hard evidence. Critical thinking is out of vogue, it's even under attack in our education systems and in the mass media.
In the media and in our education systems we are all taught to respect different opinions and everyone's opinion is equally valid. They place less emphasis on facts and evidence. I say that is nonsensical, everyone's opinion is not equally valid. Facts and evidence and opinions based upon them are far more valid than opinions formed from unverified presuppositions based on subjective and emotional viewpoints. But yet in the media in order to bring 'balance' they give equal access to all opinion makers no matter what their background or how they form their opinions. Opinions based upon no readily available facts or evidence are consumed by a public have been taught to respect them and not to think critically about them.
Evidence of this is the declining position science plays in our society. Second level education in maths and science across the entire west is suffering badly. While subjective subjects like English literature and media studies are doing quiet well. There is a boom in alternative medicine which has either never been scientifically tested or has been proven not to work. Religion is on the rise in many western countries. In Europe spiritualism and astrology are growing in significant numbers. In some parts of the west especially the US evangelical Christendom is on the rise. More people are believing in creationism and young earth theory despite the mountains of evidence against them. Facts and evidence do not matter to many people anymore.
This leads us to a very dangerous situation in a democracy. Democracy relies on a well informed and critically thinking public. The same people who are taught to respect everyone's opinion and to not think critically are deciding on political matters without examining the evidence. I don't trust the general public enough anymore to make decisions that can have a profound impact on the future for us and the subsequent generations. I believe that representative democracy, where critical thought is able to keep a foothold on power is far superior to direct rule by a poorly informed public. Humans have an inbuilt ability to psychoanalyse each other and it's this that allows us to elect intelligent critical thinking politicians (most of the time).
I am really fearful for the future of society. In the 13th century during the medieval times before the renaissance, Europe was a bastion of ignorance and superstition. Europe had regressed socially and scientifically since Greco Roman times. In comparison the Arab Islamic world was the centre of progress in science and civilisation know as the golden age of islam. After the golden age of Islam, dogmatic fundamentalism took over and this is when Islam split between Sunni and Shia. Facts and evidence coupled with critical thinking were attacked and eventually disappeared and the Islamic world regressed into the state it is now. Today almost no valuable scientific discoveries have come from the Islamic world and it is socially backward.
Beginning in the 14th century Europe went trough a cultural renaissance where new ideas and ways of thinking flourished. It was followed a few centuries later by the age of enlightenment when modern science was developed. During this period Europe cast off superstition in favour of critical think based upon facts and evidence observed in the natural world. The growth in critical thinking reformed western culture and gave it greater social responsibility and morality as well as scientific progress. By the mid 20th century poverty was in steep decline life expectancy doubled and quality of life was improved beyond the imagination of previous generations. I now fear that the west might be entering a renewed period of cultural and scientific decline. Far eastern countries are only too happy to take over the mantle of science and progress. There are far more science graduates coming out of Chinese and Indian universities and their increasing output at an accelerating pace, while output in the west is in steady decline.0 -
i-bloodhound wrote: »Out of complete curiosity, do you believe (to Sink) that the leaders of the respective countries of the EU were/are representing the majority of the people correctly and in a manner that they were elected to?Yes (with reservations).
So the Irish leaders are the only ones who got it wrong. Funny that.
Do you really think the UK government are signing with the support the people ?0 -
So the Irish leaders are the only ones who got it wrong. Funny that.
Do you really think the UK government are signing with the support the people ?
I don't think the Irish (or British) government got it wrong in the sense that you mean it. As a government they make decisions on a daily basis on a whole range of issues. They do this by examining and analysing the facts and developing an opinion of what would be best for the country. Their political ideology and other beliefs play apart and so their views are subjective. They then examine the political feasibility of implementing their ideas.
The role of government is to follow their own thought process and to try to implement their ideas. A good government should not ask the public their opinion on complex issues as unfortunately a member of the public is not as likely to apply the same level of analysis as a government department. It is the departments full time job to study and make plans and they contain experts who are well educated in their relevant fields to carry out the analysis. It is not possible for a member of the public to carry out the same level and quality of analysis as a government department.
A good government after it carries out it's own analysis and forms it's own ideas and plans tries to then inform and educate the public in order to win a consensus. This is where the Irish and the British government got things very wrong. Their communication skills are diabolical even within their own governments. Ministers were not properly schooled on the treaty even the Tánaiste had a poor level of knowledge about treaty and the EU in general.
Firstly the ministers responsible for the EU treaty (primarily Micheál Martin as minister for Foreign Affairs, Dick Roche as European Affairs Minister of State and to a lesser extent Brian Cowen) had to ensure their colleagues were properly educated on the treaty (and the EU itself in some cases). Second the entire government should have ensured the public were properly educated and informed on the treaty and the EU. The categorically failed in that essential task and that is why they are in their current predicament.
This all relates back to the argument I made in the previous post. The government is failing to get it's message across partly because the public are failing to carry out critical thought. And the media for PC reasons are giving equal time to people who have not carried out a fundamental analysis and applied critical thought to form their opinions. The media let any raving loony on to spread any crap they like without any evidence to back it up to try and give balance. Everyone can have an opinion, not all opinions are equal and the media should not treat them as such. And people who don't carry out critical thought themselves are possible going to buy into what ever the lunatic says.
Is that really so objectionable?0 -
Ministers were not properly schooled on the treaty even the Tánaiste had a poor level of knowledge about treaty and the EU in general.
Dear Jesus, this is the woman who represents us at EU and WTO level. Even you admit she doesn't have a clue.Is that really so objectionable
What do you think I think?0 -
-
-
I see you strategically ignored the first element of my post.
I did not strategically avoid anything. I said myself that she didn't have a clue what she was talking about. Just because I support the treaty does not mean I support the government. I as matter of fact think they are a shower of gobsheens. They rarely have a good idea and when they do they feck it up either in the implementation or through poor communication.0 -
Their communication skills are diabolical even within their own governments. Ministers were not properly schooled on the treaty even the Tánaiste had a poor level of knowledge about treaty and the EU in general.
To carry this further I thought it was the No voters who were misinformed and ignorant, not the government.0 -
Advertisement
-
To carry this further I thought it was the No voters who were misinformed and ignorant, not the government.
The people directly responsible for the treaty obviously had a good understanding of it. Not all members of the government were involve and some of the ones that weren't were lacking fundamental knowledge of how the EU even works. That is why I said the first thing a government should do is educate it's own members. Only after that can the government as a whole attempt to educate the public.0 -
The people directly responsible for the treaty obviously had a good understanding of it. Not all members of the government were involve and some of the ones that weren't were lacking fundamental knowledge of how the EU even works. That is why I said the first thing a government should do is educate it's own members. Only after that can all of the government attempt to educate the public.
Wow.
Are you now conceding that our political masters who urged us to vote yes didn't have a clue what they were talking about?0 -
-
In addition I never argued that the every politician who called for a yes vote knew all aspects of the treaty. Just because they didn't know does not mean the treaty itself was bad. It does mean they are unfit for government and if they were working in the private sector they would be kicked out on their ass by now.0
-
Yes, that does not mean that the treaty was bad as the people who negotiated it obviously knew what they were doing.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. In round 2, who can we trust, and who is talking cr@p? We've agreed we can discount anything Coughlan says as she doesn't know what she's talking about and doesn't understand the EU.
(Bearing in mind she's the Tanaiste and second-in-command)Not all members of the government were involve and some of the ones that weren't were lacking fundamental knowledge of how the EU even works.
Again, which other fools can we ignore? Bearing in mind that they still negotiate for us at international level in their fields of competence (Irony intended)0 -
Sink, we seem to agree on a lot.
Anybody who trusts a politician who says "Trust me" is a fool.0 -
Again, which other fools can we ignore? Bearing in mind that they still negotiate for us at international level in their fields of competence (Irony intended)
I haven't compiled a list of defective ministers or anything but I did witness a few feck ups by many of them the two worst seemed to be Willie O'Dea and Mary Coughlan. There were also poorly informed individuals in opposition who were lacking in knowledge of the treaty.
Bear in mind that for the majority of them it is not their field to negotiate treaties. They may be very knowledgeable in their own field and areas of the treaty specific to their role as they are involved in it day to day.0 -
Sink, we seem to agree on a lot.
Anybody who trusts a politician who says "Trust me" is a fool.
Agreed. Before you can trust a politician you must first make sure they know what they are talking about. That is were your own critical thinking comes into it. People do not investigate which politicians are knowledgeable and which politicians are idiots and that is why we end up with such poor governments. You shouldn't vote for a politician at the local level just because he is a member of a certain party. You should vote for the guy that show the best reasoning and are able to substantiate their opinions.
It all goes back to the way people are educated to treat all opinions as equals when they are not.0 -
I haven't compiled a list of defective ministers or anything but I did witness a few feck ups by many of them the two worst seemed to be Willie O'Dea and Mary Coughlan. There were also poorly informed individuals in opposition who were lacking in knowledge of the treaty.
Bear in mind that for the majority of them it is not their field to negotiate treaties. They may be very knowledgeable in their own field and areas of the treaty specific to their role as they are involved in it day to day.
All areas of government are subject to EU law and international treaties. None of this stuff is isolated. It's all subject to a multitude of treaties, directives and pronouncements from Europe, not to mention the WTO and whatever else is out there.
Also, because some of these fools are in opposition does not protect them from being labelled fools. Even these fools were calling for a yes to Lisbon. Comforting.0 -
Advertisement
-
dresden8
Not everybody subscribes to your conspiracies.
Thats not what sink said.dresden8 wrote:Dear Jesus, this is the woman who represents us at EU and WTO level. Even you admit she doesn't have a clue.
You have an awfull habit of spinning posts on this thread to say what they don't say.
Sadly I have to inform you that most readers can see you are doing this and just mostly Waffling on at this stage with no substance.Thats probably why only Sink at this stage is bothering with your waffle.
You don't have to know the nth degree of something to know that it is right or wrong.
For example if my doctor doesn't know what is causing my pain ,he refers me to a specialist who usually will know and explain it to the doctor suffeciently for me to understand it.
The same goes on in government every day.
A minister explains to a competent civil servant that he/she wants X,Y and Z done.
The Civil servant works on it and comes back with the legislation.
It's full of legalese but the minister is happy with the effect of it.
If the voting public isn't , then they vote them out.
It's the exact same with Lisbon despite the unmitigated rubbish and conspiracy theories you've been pedaling for the last few pages.0
Advertisement