10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

sink

The Official Yes campaigns last referendum were pathetic, they relied on empty catch phrases from empty politicians who had lost public confidence long ago. The entire campaign was almost vacant of any mention of what was actually in the Treaty of Lisbon and why it is good; you know the real reasons for voting Yes! Due to this massive oversight and the utter contempt I have for the main political campaigns I decided to gather together the reasons I voted yes to Lisbon and will do so again next time. Here are my top 10.


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]

At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]

National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]

The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).

The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).

6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]

The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.

7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability

The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

Maybe the reason that the actual changes the Treaty of Lisbon makes garner so little attention is due to the fact that they are pretty mundane, but then Lisbon is a fairly tame treaty in comparison to previous ones such as Maastricht. So I guess my best advice is don’t listen to the media hype who are only interested in selling newspapers and don’t listen to the political campaigns who are only interested in promoting their own political ambitions, read the white paper on Lisbon and refer to the treaty to arbitrate on any contentious issues.

All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
*TEU = Treaty on European Union
*TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

For further reading and more detailed information I recommend the 'White paper on Lisbon' prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs which can be found here.

Regards,
Sink

Martin 2

Good work Sink, somebody should put these points on postcards and send one to every household in the country:), or at the very least forward the link to the official campaigns

Daftendirekt

Good post, Sink. I'm gonna link to this in my sig, if you don't mind.

sink

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'm gonna link to this in my sig, if you don't mind.

Be my guest.

upthedub

Should also put the 10 reasons why we should NOT vote for lisbon beside this.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Be my guest.

I shall indeed.

upthedub wrote: »

Should also put the 10 reasons why we should NOT vote for lisbon beside this.

I've yet to see 10 reasons that are true tbh

Hitman Actual

upthedub wrote: »

Should also put the 10 reasons why we should NOT vote for lisbon beside this.

You're free to start your own thread; don't forget to give the Treaty articles you're referring to.

Very good post, sink.

onq

I accept all the positive points you made.

The below points are the original negative ones I had.
They seem to entrench a Bureaucracy into a protected position from where it cannot be controlled by the electorate.
We already have uncontrollable Banks and we see where that got us.

• enabling Lisbon automatically brings in another document taht wasn't not available in the run up to the vote.
• voting Yes to Lisbon means no more significant changes need to be referred to the electorates of the countries they will affect.
• NOT ONE of our overpaid public servants was asked to review the ENTIRE text and keynote it for the Taoiseach.
• NONE of our 164 elected representatives read it.
• the document was deliberately made so complex as to be unreadable.

I see no substantive changes made to the core difficulties I had the first time.
I hate seeing people manipulated by Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
I have seen no chages to the real concerns above.
I have seen no explanatory notes on it this time.

Again.

Lisbon is designed to muzzle the rich tapestry of Europe and force us to speak with one voice.
That way the Irish won't embarrass the powers that be like we used to, standing up for the little guy.

But thankfully, Big Government is now well behind the curve.
The technology is out there now, and Blogs and Bulletin Boards are more widely read than Newspapers.
Controlling the coinage and the courts and the money was never enough - controlling the media has always been the real prize.
Its why every would-be dictator either takes out or takes over the radio and TV stations first, before even consolidating power.
We are all conditioned to it, Pavlov's Poodes all of us- it confers legitimacy and penetration of hearts and minds in one go.

Read Lisbon and tell me you'll sleep easier in your bed after its passed.

ONQ.

"Control the Coinage and the Courts - let the rabble have the rest."
-- The Padishah Emperor, Dune, by Frank Herbert

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws"
-- Lord Nathan Mayer Rothschild

Truth IS stranger than fiction.

sink

upthedub wrote: »

Should also put the 10 reasons why we should NOT vote for lisbon beside this.

There is only one genuine reason to vote no; to vote against a political union of European states. If you're for a political union, any issues you would have with the Treaty of Lisbon (and I have my own) are outweighed by the benefits Lisbon has to offer.

upthedub

sink wrote: »

There is only one genuine reason to vote no; to vote against a political union of European states. If you're for a political union, any issues you would have with the Treaty of Lisbon (and I have my own) are outweighed by the benefits Lisbon has to offer.

Have you read the whole lisbon document??

sink

onq wrote: »

So the bit where enabling Lisbon automatically brings in another document doesn't cause you concern?

I'm not sure to what you are referring, perhaps you could provide a reference?

onq wrote: »

Or the bit where voting Yes to Lisbon means no more significant changes need to be referred to the electorates of the countries they will affect?

Any future changes which presently require a referendum will still require a referendum after Lisbon is ratified.

PopeBuckfastXVI

onq wrote: »

So the bit where enabling Lisbon automatically brings in another document doesn't cause you concern?

Or the bit where voting Yes to Lisbon means no more significant changes need to be referred to the electorates of the countries they will affect?

I'm not aware of those bits, were you given article numbers to corroborate these claims? I fear you may have been misled...

sink

upthedub wrote: »

Have you read the whole lisbon document??

Not cover to cover, I have read the consolidates TEU and TFEU in their entirety and I have referenced the protocols and annexes if there were any contentious issues.

upthedub

sink wrote: »

Not cover to cover, I have read the consolidates TEU and TFEU in their entirety and I have referenced the protocols and annexes if there were any contentious issues.

I think you are better off reading ALL before you make your mind up !

sink

upthedub wrote: »

I think you are better off reading ALL before you make your mind up !

Why, what would be the point? and have you? It's perfectly reasonable to read only the parts that are causing difficulty.

Danco

That's 11 points. There's only one 6 between 1 and 10.

Tar.Aldarion

Danco wrote: »

That's 11 points. There's only one 6 between 1 and 10.

Not if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

onq

sink wrote: »

<snip>
All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
*TEU = Treaty on European Union
*TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Oh yes. The Irish Translation. Brilliant.

ONQ

upthedub

sink wrote: »

Why, what would be the point? and have you? It's perfectly reasonable to read only the parts that are causing difficulty.

How can you make up your mind if you have not read it all??

sink

Danco wrote: »

That's 11 points. There's only one 6 between 1 and 10.

Whoops. I split point 5 and forgot to renumber the rest. I've relabled 5 & 6, 5a & 5b.

sink

onq wrote: »

Oh yes. The Irish Translation. Brilliant.

ONQ

Whoops again. Fixed, now it point to the English version.

onq

sink wrote: »

I'm not sure to what you are referring, perhaps you could provide a reference?

Any future changes which presently require a referendum will still require a referendum after Lisbon is ratified.

I could if I searched for it.
It was brought to my attention by a column by Vincent Brown in the back of the SBP.
It was widely reported just before the vote.
Surely someone as clued in as you is aware of this?

After seeing the Danes and France muzzled, the rest of Europe disenfranchised on the matter of "referendums" you have balls to bring that in.
And no, my reading of it suggested that was not the case.
We wouldn't be able to hold future referendums

ONQ

sink

onq wrote: »

I could if I searched for it.
It was brought to my attention by a column by Vincent Brown in the back of the SBP.
It was widely reported just before the vote.
Surely someone as clued in as you is aware of this?

You are going to have to provide sources if you want a debate, because I still haven't a clue what you're talking about.

onq wrote: »

After seeing the Danes and France muzzled, the rest of Europe disenfranchised on the matter of "referendums" you have balls to bring that in.
And no, my reading of it suggested that was not the case.
We wouldn't be able to hold future referendums

ONQ

Can you be more specific, where in the treaty does it prevent Ireland from holding future referenda? If you're not going to provide references your points hold no weight.

Hitman Actual

upthedub wrote: »

How can you make up your mind if you have not read it all??

You don't need to read it all. It's perfectly reasonable to isolate the issues you have concerns with, and concentrate on those. And there are enough contentious statements made about the Treaty that you won't miss anything of importance, in case you think that by not reading all of it you're missing something in the small print.

onq

sink wrote: »

Whoops again. Fixed, now it point to the English version.

<chuckle>

This may not be entirely fair to you personally, but your performance here this afternoon is precisely why I mistrust unaccountable Bureaucracy.
You seem like a Good Guy, but your typos and mis-references are examples of the kind of errors that I suspect litter Lisbon.
We don't know this of course - BECAUSE NO ONE HAS READ IT YET!!!
Not even the Attorney General it appears
Why are we paying him again...?

LOL!

Its hard enough to get Directors to do their job even with the Companies Act.
It seems to be all you can do these days to find reputable solicitors who won't rip you off anjd steal your money.
Placing more, unaccountable power in the hands of Servants of Cute Hoor politicians is the last thing we should be doing, IMO.

If you want to grant someone more power, do it under conditions that make them more relucant to accept it.
Make them all personally liable unto their estates - like architects - and we'll soon see who rushes to accept positions.

ONQ

sink

onq wrote: »

<chuckle>

This may not be entirely fair to you personally, but your performance here this afternoon is precisely why I mistrust unaccountable Bureaucracy.
You seem like a Good Guy, but your typos and mis-references are examples of the kind of errors that litter Lisbon.
We don't know thsi of course - BECAUSE NO ONE HAS READ IT YET!!!

LOL!

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're being pretty ridiculous imo. I copied the wrong link and wrongly numbered one point and you believe that refutes my entire post. I'm still waiting for references to the points you raised btw!

molloyjh

Excellent post sink. Would you mind if I quoted it on p.ie?

onq wrote: »

enabling Lisbon automatically brings in another document taht wasn't not available in the run up to the vote.

Not sure what that means? Could you clarify please?

onq wrote: »

voting Yes to Lisbon means no more significant changes need to be referred to the electorates of the countries they will affect.

Article 48 Section 4 states quite clearly:

Lisbon Treaty wrote:

A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

See page 31 in the following: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF

onq wrote: »

NOT ONE of our overpaid public servants was asked to review the ENTIRE text and keynote it for the Taoiseach.

That doesn't mean the Treaty was either good or bad so is irrelevant.

onq wrote: »

NONE of our 164 elected representatives read it.

As previous.

onq wrote: »

the document was deliberately made so complex as to be unreadable.

The document is so complex and unreadable because it is an international treaty covering the running of a union of 27 member states that also updates a number of other Treaties. There's no way something like that will ever be readable.

onq wrote: »

I hate seeing people manipulated by Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

I saw nothing that could be seen to create that in sinks original post.

onq wrote: »

I have seen no explanatory notes on it this time.

The explanatory notes are the same as before. The consolidated versions sink has linked to and things like the Referendum Commissions site etc (see www.lisbontreaty2008.ie for a good overview of the Treaty).

onq

sink wrote: »

You are going to have to provide sources if you want a debate, because I still haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Can you be more specific, where in the treaty does it prevent Ireland from holding future referenda? If you're not going to provide references your points hold no weight.

Now you're quoting debating rules at me?
The Good Guy who can't itemise points?
I'll dig it out and revert later tonight.

IN the meantime, catch - read this utter nonsense from the first page of the link you re-posted.

=============================================

"NOTE TO THE READER

"This publication contains the consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with the annexes and protocols thereto, as they will result from the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon. It also contains the declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon.

"The Treaty of Lisbon is still in the process of being ratified by the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. As provided for in Article 6 thereof, the Treaty will enter into force on 1 January 2009, provided that all the instruments of ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of the last instrument of ratification.

"This publication is provisional in nature. Until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, a number of rectifications may be made to one or other language version of the text, in order to correct possible errors which may come to light in the Treaty of Lisbon or in the prior Treaties.

"This text has been produced for documentary purposes and does not involve the responsibility of the institutions of the European Union."

That last line is the killer - you'll never see any diaper wearing Bureaucrats taking responsibility for anything!

ONQ

ei.sdraob

as i mentioned in another thread

point #10 (energy policy) on its own is huge reason to vote for it as it has so many economic consequences

Hitman Actual

onq wrote: »

Now you're quoting debating rules at me?
The Good Guy who can't itemise points?

Why all the sly little digs? Are they just to disguise the fact that your arguments have NO substance whatsoever? By the way, you do know that there is a Conspiracy Theory Forum on boards, right? It would suit your frame of mind a lot better.

PopeBuckfastXVI

upthedub wrote: »

I think you are better off reading ALL before you make your mind up !

What's in Lisbon that isn't in the Consolidated Treaties?

Daftendirekt

onq wrote: »

Now you're quoting debating rules at me?
The Good Guy who can't itemise points?
I'll dig it out and revert later tonight.

IN the meantime, catch - read this utter nonsense from the first page of the link you re-posted.

<snip>

You know, it might be more productive for you to try and debate some of the points in the OP, rather than making snippy little comments at the poster.

turgon

onq, perhaps if you provided a top 10 list of your own, with article numbers, we could have a proper debate.

tommym037

I'm still voting NO...

ixtlan

onq wrote: »

I accept all the positive points you made.

A good start

• enabling Lisbon automatically brings in another document taht wasn't not available in the run up to the vote.

And you are the one saying "I hate seeing people manipulated by Fear Uncertainty and Doubt." while at the same time you vaguely make this assertion with no reference to the treaty contents.

onq wrote: »

[*]voting Yes to Lisbon means no more significant changes need to be referred to the electorates of the countries they will affect.

And you are the one saying "I hate seeing people manipulated by Fear Uncertainty and Doubt." while at the same time you vaguely make this assertion with no reference to the treaty contents.

onq wrote: »

[*]NOT ONE of our overpaid public servants was asked to review the ENTIRE text and keynote it for the Taoiseach.

Again... fear... uncertainty, doubt... How do you KNOW this? Have you asked all employees in the DFA? Since the DFA has produced this and other documents, I think that contradicts your claim. http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/EU%20Division/EU%20Reform%20Treaty/white%20paper%20-%20final%20-%20low%20res%20from%20printers%20-%20020709.pdf

onq wrote: »

[*]NONE of our 164 elected representatives read it.

Have you received an answer to a query about this? Have all 166 TDs responded in the negative? It could be that they have not read the treaty "cover to cover", but I doubt that you can state this as a fact. And anyhow, as others have said it is reasonable to concentrate on the controversial issues.

onq wrote: »

I have seen no explanatory notes on it this time.

You are not looking very hard. http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

onq wrote: »

Read Lisbon and tell me you'll sleep easier in your bed after its passed.

Actually I will.

While it's entertaining to respond to posts like this, it is rather sad that a post to discuss the merits of Lisbon descends into a slagging match.

I find it very intriguing that you casually agree with all the positives mentioned in the first post and then make very vague unsubstaniated negative points. Do you really find that your concerns outweigh the positives that you yourself agree exist? Do you want to comment on the points in the first excellent post by Sink?


Ix

Sam Vimes

tommym037 wrote: »

I'm still voting NO...

For any particular reason or just because yore mad?

Sam Vimes

onq wrote: »

[*]enabling Lisbon automatically brings in another document taht wasn't not available in the run up to the vote.

No it doesn't

onq wrote: »

[*]voting Yes to Lisbon means no more significant changes need to be referred to the electorates of the countries they will affect.

No it doesn't

onq wrote: »

[*]NOT ONE of our overpaid public servants was asked to review the ENTIRE text and keynote it for the Taoiseach.

How do you know and what does Brian Cowen have to do with the Lisbon treaty?

onq wrote: »

[*]NONE of our 164 elected representatives read it.

So (it's 166 btw)? They have neither the time nor the expertise to make an informed decision which is why they pay legal experts to advise them

onq wrote: »

[*]the document was deliberately made so complex as to be unreadable.

I've heard this a lot but I've read quite a lot of it and as far as I remember it was written in English. I understood everything I read anyway.

onq wrote: »

I hate seeing people manipulated by Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Like the no side are doing?

WIZE

I will be voting yes .

onq

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You don't need to read it all. It's perfectly reasonable to isolate the issues you have concerns with, and concentrate on those. And there are enough contentious statements made about the Treaty that you won't miss anything of importance, in case you think that by not reading all of it you're missing something in the small print.

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!*

Don't EVER sign anything - beause you won't know what you're signing up to with that attitude.

Unfortunately that's typical of the approach of the 166(!) geniuses in our government.

ONQ

Sam Vimes

onq wrote: »

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!*

Don't EVER sign anything - beause you won't know what you're signing up to with that attitude.

Unfortunately that's typical of the approach of the 166(!) geniuses in our government.

ONQ

Or, and this is a crazy concept, you could have a team of highly paid lawyers to read it for you and they could summarise the few important points of a treaty that is 99% mind numbingly boring :eek:

Shocking I know

No average person is ever going to read and understand an entire treaty so your attitude will result in Ireland never voting yes to a treaty ever again.

PopeBuckfastXVI

onq wrote: »

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!*

Don't EVER sign anything - beause you won't know what you're signing up to with that attitude.

Unfortunately that's typical of the approach of the 166(!) geniuses in our government.

ONQ

Even if your trusted family lawyer told you there was nothing controversial or detrimental in the thing you're signing?

I assume you've read every word of every EULA of every bit of software you've ever installed in that case?

If so you must have a lot of time on your hands...

onq

ixtlan wrote: »

<snip>

I find it very intriguing that you casually agree with all the positives mentioned in the first post and then make very vague unsubstaniated negative points. Do you really find that your concerns outweigh the positives that you yourself agree exist? Do you want to comment on the points in the first excellent post by Sink?
Ix

First, I gave Sink his due.

Then I expressed my concerns.

In doing that I made quite specific unsubstantiated negative points.

Since my concerns centre on devolving more power to our elected representatives - and since I have doubts about their ability do more than attend the opening of a envelope at this stage - I am concerned, yes.

Since my understanding is that once ratified, the treaty which Lisbon brings in will allow further changes without referendums - I am concerned, yes.

Since the intelligentsia of the banking world and poor financial regulation in Europe and America have gotten us into the current economic crisis - I am concerned, yes.

And you should be too, knowing the Gombeen man Irish politician as you must. The fact that you appear not to be means that once again - I am concerned, yes.

ONQ

Sam Vimes

onq wrote: »

Since my understanding is that once ratified, the treaty which Lisbon brings in will allow further changes without referendums - I am concerned, yes.

Your understanding is incorrect. They can currently bring in changes without referendums as long as those changes do not require a change to our constitution, which roughly 0.01% of Lisbon does.

Tell me, do you want to have a referendum every time the EU wants to change the time they take lunch at or what exactly are you afraid will happen if Betty from Mayo doesn't get to give her uninformed opinion on everything the EU does?

onq wrote: »

Since the intelligentsia of the banking world and poor financial regulation in Europe and America have gotten us into the current economic crisis - I am concerned, yes.

And do you think Betty from Mayo has any more of a chance of making the right decision? Why even have a government if the people are going to decide directly on every little thing?

onq

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Even if your trusted family lawyer told you there was nothing controversial or detrimental in the thing you're signing?

I assume you've read every word of every EULA of every bit of software you've ever installed in that case?

If so you must have a lot of time on your hands...

I don't trust solicitors - I check their work.
I have seen too many of them make utterly clueless mistakes.
I have seen others undermining cases based on obsolete assumptions.

I read the EULAs of most mission-critical software.
The central tenets that

• its licensed
• you don't own it
• you can't alter it

is typical of Windows-based EULAs.

And no, I don't have endless amounts of time.
I speed read: I use search facilities: don't you?

I also type reasonably quickly.
Useful when re-writing to get things to a printable stage.



ONQ

PopeBuckfastXVI

OK,

Would you trust a surgeons word on what he is going to do to you in an operation, or would you insist upon seeing an identical operation take place in front of your eyes first?

If you can't, you'll just have to believe that some people can (although seeing as you have trust issues, maybe you won't!?), and that it's perfectly valid to take a summary of the treaty from a trusted source like Refcom, the EU itself or the DFA, especially when they are all summarizing it in the exact same way.

For extra security you can take the claims of people who are against the EU, and against any EU treaty and examine their veracity based on the actual text itself. If there is something objectively bad, or some hidden gotcha in the treaty, you can be sure that one of our local friendly ultracatholic, socialist or plain rabid nationalist groupings will find it.

If their claims aren't backed up by the part of the treaty you do read, as is the case for the most part, then you can be sure that what's left over probably conforms to the claims made by Refcom et al.

That's if you're capeable of trust, otherwise you can read the consolidated TFEU and TEU for yourself.

steamjetjoe

There shouldnt be 10 reasons to vote for lisbon or 10 reasons not to vote for lisbon. All average joe needs to know is

1. Will any changes take money out of my pocket?

2. Will it im prove my quality of life?

Simple Pimple:D

onq

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

OK,

Would you trust a surgeons word on what he is going to do to you in an operation, or would you insist upon seeing an identical operation take place in front of your eyes first?
<snip>

That's an apples and oranges argument.
Notwithstanding all the women who've suffered needlessly at the hands of that surgeon in Drogheda and his symphisiontnomies, the other genius who removed wombs and the countless doctors who prescribed anti-ulcer medication long after H.Pylori was discovered I'd still accept that a specialist medical practitioner with ten to fourteen years study and training would do a good job.

I don't consider politicians and bureaucrats or unmonitored "consultants" to be on anything like the same level of competence.

That's if you're capeable of trust, otherwise you can read the consolidated TFEU and TEU for yourself.

And that's a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Trust doesn't enter into it when political structures are being built.
You verify.

And yes, I probably will read the whole treaty this time.
Both treaties, actually.
And so should everybody.
Because this legalistic waffle will bind us into the future and our governments.

"Competences"?

They cannot competently and clearly write a treaty, that's for sure.
With something this important, the text should be a user-friendly re-write from the ground up, not a waffly, legalistic set of amendments to previous writings.
Its a sure way to foster mistakes in the text, in use and in interpretation.
The sloppy to write the law - minor amendments to existing texts.
Write it once, clearly and well.
Do it right.

ONQ

PopeBuckfastXVI

onq wrote: »

That's an apples and oranges argument.
Notwithstanding all the women who've suffered needlessly at the hands of that surgeon in Drogheda and his symphisiontnomies, the other genius who removed wombs and the countless doctors who prescribed anti-ulcer medication long after H.Pylori was discovered I'd still accept that a specialist medical practitioner with ten to fourteen years study and training would do a good job.

I don't consider politicians and bureaucrats or unmonitored "consultants" to be on anything like the same level of competence.



And that's a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Trust doesn't enter into it when political structures are being built.
You verify.

And yes, I probably will read the whole treaty this time.
Both treaties, actually.
And so should everybody.
Because this legalistic waffle will bind us into the future and our governments.

"Competences"?

They cannot competently and clearly write a treaty, that's for sure.
With something this important, the text should be a user-friendly re-write from the ground up, not a waffly, legalistic set of amendments to previous writings.
Its a sure way to foster mistakes in the text, in use and in interpretation.
The sloppy to write the law - minor amendments to existing texts.
Write it once, clearly and well.
Do it right.

ONQ

So verify.

I'll be very interested in seeing your posts on the specific contents of the treaty which either perturb or impress you.

onq

turgon wrote: »

onq, perhaps if you provided a top 10 list of your own, with article numbers, we could have a proper debate.

Turgon. Tar-Aldarion. Is this a closet Tolkien Silmarillion Group?



I did post my man concerns and have been castigated for not citing references.

All OP did was post his summaries of his pro-Lisbon points and a generic reference.

I'm getting it in the neck for not being more specific that he was.

<tut, tut>

ONQ.

Scofflaw

onq wrote: »

Turgon. Tar-Aldarion. Is this a closet Tolkien Silmarillion Group?



I did post my man concerns and have been castigated for not citing references.

All OP did was post his summaries of his pro-Lisbon points and a generic reference.

I'm getting it in the neck for not being more specific that he was.

<tut, tut>

ONQ.

There seems to be an article reference on each of sink's, and none on yours, so the comparison isn't really apt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

onq wrote: »

Turgon. Tar-Aldarion. Is this a closet Tolkien Silmarillion Group?

Don't mind this Silmarillion character, I'm just here to make quips passing by.
I have certainly read the treaty, out of interest, and made my decision on what I would vote but most likely won't even bother voting, it's all about the quips...