10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

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...

onq

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't
No it doesn't

Yes it does - its the "Functioning" memo - how its supposed to work.

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

Cowan admitted he hadn't read it. Others in his cabinet said you've have to be mad to read it - or words to that effect. None have updated or changed their position AFAIK.

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

And which if them has read it and performed that function?

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.

Legalese isn't English, it just looks like English.

Like the no side are doing?

I'm not the "no side".
This purely my side and my vote.
I don't claim to lead or represent anybody.
I ask questions of people who are supposed to be running the country.

You should too.

ONQ

ei.sdraob

steamjetjoe wrote: »

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

#10 > common energy policy could mean the whole of eu can beat russia and other energy suppliers with a large stick not 27 little matchsticks

1. it will put more money in your pocket as energy would cost less
2. ^ more money would improve the quality of your life

Sam Vimes

onq wrote: »

Yes it does - its the "Functioning" memo - how its supposed to work.

No it doesn't. As I already said, they can already make changes without referendums if our constitution doesn't need to be changed.

And even if it couldn't, most of your argument seems to be against the entire concept of representative democracy rather than the treaty. Why is it that you don't fight for a referendum on every new bill that gets passed in the dail? What exactly are you afraid will pass without a referendum? You know any changes to our tax system would still require a referendum for example?

And do you really think the average Joe Soap would do a better job or make more informed decisions?

onq wrote: »

Cowan admitted he hadn't read it. Others in his cabinet said you've have to be mad to read it - or words to that effect. None have updated or changed their position AFAIK.

And which if them has read it and performed that function?

I said legal experts, not TDs. The TDs got their legal experts to summarise it for them and make sure there was nothing they objected to in it

Remember that these experts were involved in writing the treaty in the first place so they know what's in it

onq wrote: »

Legalese isn't English, it just looks like English.

Anything I've read has been quite clear. If you could point to an article you're having trouble understanding I'm sure someone will explain it to you

Hitman Actual

onq wrote: »

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!*

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

Stop being so ridiculous; complex multi-lateral treaties are completely dissimilar to any document/contract that an individual will have to sign. You seem to be implying that any treaty Ireland signs up to with any other country needs to be fully read by the electorate, and every single technicality understood. Which is ironic, considering that, from your posts, it seems that your understanding of the Lisbon Treaty is poor.

turgon

onq wrote: »

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

Darn it, now youve given me something to respect you over

But seriously onq. There is no "self-amending" clause in the sense people would have you believe. All changes would still have to strictly follow regular ratification protocol, in Ireland's case a referendum.

And the legalese thing. You do realize we are talking about a complex Treaty governing this super-national organization which has limited power over 27 nations. Its hardly going to be simple.

K-9

onq wrote: »

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.

Except for the small matter of each countries Constitution.

onq wrote:

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

Can you provide a source. "Vincent Browne said" isn't very good and I'm surprised you give him so much credence.

We need a Lisbon for dummies booklet, but sure, they'll just get offended at being called dummies!

onq wrote:

BECAUSE NO ONE HAS READ IT YET!!!

Time to leave methinks. Nobody ever read the Treaty!

sink

molloyjh wrote: »

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

Go right ahead.

onq

Okay, I'm back. "for a little while".
[Tolkien fans herabouts can name that quote in one]

I found a website that allows you to download the consolidated texts, which I understand is the texts without all the legalese references to the parts the amend.

Someone has finally done this job, which I believe, if it had been done in the first instance, might have swung the vote.
I'm very glad it didn't because of the concessions Ireland has won in the meantime from the assembled ministers.

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

This link is for the free PDF version of the Treaty of Lisbon

http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/download.action?fileName=FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf&eubphfUid=534817&catalogNbr=FX-AC-07-306-EN-C


"The treaty of Lisbon is the result of negotiations between the European Union's member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament during an intergovernmental conference.
After the official signing on 13 December 2007, the treaty will still not apply until and unless it is ratified by each of the European Union's 27 member states. It is up to each country to choose the procedure for ratification, in line with its own national constitution. The target date for ratification set by member governments is 1 January 2009 — a few months before the elections to the European Parliament"

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

This link is for free PDF version of the consilidated Treaties I]Maastricht [/I]and[I] Rome[/Iaccording to the Treaty on Lisbon

http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/download.action?fileName=FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf&eubphfUid=534817&catalogNbr=FX-AC-07-306-EN-C

"Changes to the European Union's Treaties have always come about through amendments to previous Treaties: this was true of the Single European Act, as well as the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. Through the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, the Union's two main Treaties (Maastricht and Rome) will be renamed the "Treaty on European Union" and the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union".
This issue of the Official Journal of the European Union contains the consolidated text of those two core Treaties, integrating the modifications listed in the articles of the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as the annexes and protocols thereto, as they will result from the amendments introduced. It also contains the declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon."

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

At least now if we're debating this, we can refer to what appears to be the best texts available, two complete searchable documents, as opposed to discrete links on a master html page.
If anyone has any other standalone primary sources which improve on this, perhaps a detailed commentary or a similar text with footnotes and comments, as opposed to a waffly feelgood summary of aspirations, could they please post it for all to read.
I think there are some floating around, but they're online texts and I want to read these at my leisure over the next few weeks.

TIA

ONQ

PopeBuckfastXVI

onq wrote: »

Okay, I'm back. "for a little while".
[Tolkien fans herabouts can name that quote in one]

I found a website that allows you to download the consolidated texts, which I understand is the texts without all the legalese references to the parts the amend.

Someone has finally done this job, which I believe, if it had been done in the first instance, might have swung the vote.
I'm very glad it didn't because of the concessions Ireland has won in the meantime from the assembled ministers.

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

This link is for the free PDF version of the Treaty of Lisbon

http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/download.action?fileName=FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf&eubphfUid=534817&catalogNbr=FX-AC-07-306-EN-C


"The treaty of Lisbon is the result of negotiations between the European Union's member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament during an intergovernmental conference.
After the official signing on 13 December 2007, the treaty will still not apply until and unless it is ratified by each of the European Union's 27 member states. It is up to each country to choose the procedure for ratification, in line with its own national constitution. The target date for ratification set by member governments is 1 January 2009 — a few months before the elections to the European Parliament"

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

This link is for free PDF version of the consilidated Treaties I]Maastricht [/I]and[I] Rome[/Iaccording to the Treaty on Lisbon

http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/download.action?fileName=FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf&eubphfUid=534817&catalogNbr=FX-AC-07-306-EN-C

"Changes to the European Union's Treaties have always come about through amendments to previous Treaties: this was true of the Single European Act, as well as the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. Through the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, the Union's two main Treaties (Maastricht and Rome) will be renamed the "Treaty on European Union" and the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union".
This issue of the Official Journal of the European Union contains the consolidated text of those two core Treaties, integrating the modifications listed in the articles of the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as the annexes and protocols thereto, as they will result from the amendments introduced. It also contains the declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon."

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

At least now if we're debating this, we can refer to what appears to be the best texts available, two complete searchable documents, as opposed to discrete links on a master html page.
If anyone has any other standalone primary sources which improve on this, perhaps a detailed commentary or a similar text with footnotes and comments, as opposed to a waffly feelgood summary of aspirations, could they please post it for all to read.
I think there are some floating around, but they're online texts and I want to read these at my leisure over the next few weeks.

TIA

ONQ

More links for you...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60626618&postcount=13
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055625875

The consolidated versions of the Treaties have been around since well before the first referendum AFAIK, and are pretty much the only version of the text we deal with in this forum.

onq

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

More links for you...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60626618&postcount=13
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055625875

The consolidated versions of the Treaties have been around since well before the first referendum AFAIK, and are pretty much the only version of the text we deal with in this forum.

Ta for the links.
A most productive post.
Nothing worse than a winey cleric.

M.