Who has actually read the Lisbon Treaty?

Shield

Without stating your position on the Lisbon Treaty, I can't help wondering who among you has actually sat down and read it cover to cover?

If you haven't, then you are basing your 'Yes' or 'No' vote on what someone tells you.

In a court of law, this would be inadmissible because it's hearsay, so why are people so ready and willing to accept what they are being told is true, or untrue, about Lisbon, without having read what they are voting on?

Surely people must know that particular groups want you to vote a certain way, and will therefore distort things in their favour, and present it as truth in an attempt to win your vote for their side?

So: Simple question/Simple answer time, which applies to only those of you who intend to use your vote.

Yes, I have read the Lisbon Treaty
OR
No, I have not read Lisbon Treaty

O'Morris

psni wrote:

Without stating your position on the Lisbon Treaty, I can't help wondering who among you has actually sat down and read it cover to cover?

I haven't read it cover to cover. Have you?

Tarobot

Yes, I have read the Lisbon Treaty

ChocolateSauce

I haven't read it all, or even half, and I don't need to because I'm not so paranoid that I won't trust an unbiased summary of its main points from an expert source.

Besides, I'm not voting on the treaty, I'm voting for a constitutional amendment that will enable our TD's and Senators to vote on it, just like they vote on every other international treaty. The one single place where I see that FF hasn't F'ed up is in foreign policy. Regardless, it isn't as if they wrote it.

Shield

O'Morris wrote: »

I haven't read it cover to cover. Have you?

No I haven't.

WeeBushy

I've read most of it.

Didn't sit down and read it cover to cover, but over time. Started reading the bits that stood out as most controversial and as issues arose I read more. Got through about 85% or there about I'd say.

I am far, far more educated on it that last time around. I have admit that I didn't really know what was going on last time.

Scofflaw

Read it, summarised it, compared it to Nice, and produced a searchable version with Lisbon & Nice next to each other - here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agent Smith

Yes, I have read the Lisbon Treaty

Tarobot

Scofflaw wrote: »

Read it, summarised it, compared it to Nice, and produced a searchable version with Lisbon & Nice next to each other - here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wow is that your website? Thanks so much. It's a fantastic resource and I constantly find myself going back to it.

Thoie

Yes, I've read it, and various other items it refers to.

Hitman Actual

psni wrote: »

Surely people must know that particular groups want you to vote a certain way, and will therefore distort things in their favour, and present it as truth in an attempt to win your vote for their side?

You don't have to read the whole treaty, cover to cover, to be able to filter out the BS. And it's unrealistic to expect most people to read it all. Also, to understand the details to the level you seem to be implying in your post, you would have to also have read, from cover to cover, the treaties as amended by Nice. And also understand exactly what they do. That's a job for professionals and academics, tbh.

Personally I've read maybe 60% of the Consolidated Versions of both Lisbon and Nice, and the Charter, honing in on the important areas of change (or lack of): CFSP, JHA/FSJ, taxation, future revision procedures, QMV and changes to vetos, CoFR, main institutional changes, etc, etc. I also work from a very good EU law book (the one by Craig and DeBurca) to clarify anything I have issues with (I found it excellent for reading up on the Charter, for example).

isocket

Lets' have some honesty here on this forum.
Would you sign a mortgage agreement, or any other legal document, with out reading &, more importantly, understanding every damn word of it?
99% of readers on this forum have not read the actual treaty & they know it.
It is an act of insanity, therefore, to vote yes to something you have not & cannot read, because, to paraphrase Charlie McCreevy, it would be an act of insanity to try!

People, you really need to wise up on this!

Thoie

isocket wrote: »

It is an act of insanity, therefore, to vote yes to something you have not & cannot read, because, to paraphrase Charlie McCreevy, it would be an act of insanity to try!

People, you really need to wise up on this!

By the same token, if you haven't read it, it's an act of insanity to vote no - for all you know there could be a clause in there that guarantees free hookers and blackjack to every Irish resident. The only sensible solution is to have an exam before voting - if you can't answer some basic questions on the treaty, you don't get to vote.

MikeC101

isocket wrote: »

Lets' have some honesty here on this forum.
Would you sign a mortgage agreement, or any other legal document, with out reading &, more importantly, understanding every damn word of it?

Certainly, as long as someone I'd consider an expert I trust, has advised me on it. In fact, I wouldn't expect to necessarily understand all the legalese contained in some legal documentation without advice from somebody more versed in these matters.

isocket wrote: »

99% of readers on this forum have not read the actual treaty & they know it.

Nice statistic there. Are you sure it's not 99.99%? Just to, you know, go for the most hysterical possibility.

isocket wrote: »

It is an act of insanity, therefore, to vote yes to something you have not & cannot read, because, to paraphrase Charlie McCreevy, it would be an act of insanity to try!

Cannot read? Are you for real? The document (or parts I have read) isn't that bloody obscure. If you think it's not possible to read it, then I really don't have much respect for your opinion.

isocket wrote: »

People, you really need to wise up on this!

Wise up being the same as "agree with you" it seems.

Fighting Irish

Thoie wrote: »

By the same token, if you haven't read it, it's an act of insanity to vote no - for all you know there could be a clause in there that guarantees free hookers and blackjack to every Irish resident. The only sensible solution is to have an exam before voting - if you can't answer some basic questions on the treaty, you don't get to vote.

I might actually vote now

isocket

MikeC101 wrote: »

Certainly, as long as some I'd consider an expert I trust, has advised me on it. In fact, I wouldn't expect to necessarily understand all the legalese contained in some legal documentation without advice from somebody more versed in these matters.

I see, so you've hired yourself a team of crack Euro Treaties lawyers have you?
The original treaty document is Bible like in it's obscurity & you know it.
The consolidated version is not the original document, thus it cannot hold the same legal weight.

BTW, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell ya, just sign here please ....;)

marco_polo

isocket wrote: »

I see, so you've hired yourself a team of crack Euro Treaties lawyers have you?
The original treaty document is Bible like in it's obscurity & you know it.
The consolidated version is not the original document, thus it cannot hold the same legal weight.

BTW, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell ya, just sign here please ....;)

By your logic the 'consoidated version' of our constitution will not have the same legal weight as the amendment if lisbon is passed? That is just silly talk.

If you are having trouble understanding the treaty there are plenty of people here who can help you out.

isocket

Most entertaining.
Evidently, the logic of not signing any legal document you do not understand has passed you.
If you are seriously claiming to understand, in full, the Lisbon Treaty then your a better Europhile than Charlie McCreavy or Garret Fitzgerald, both of whom admit to it's incomprehension.

(I can send you a pic of that bridge btw, it's luverly mate, honestly, there's even room for migrant workers for you & Pat Cox to exploit to your hearts content....)

MikeC101

isocket wrote: »

I see, so you've hired yourself a team of crack Euro Treaties lawyers have you?

Ah yes, hysterics and drama all the way. You ever work for Coir?

From what I've read, and newspaper analysis, and even the detailed posts that have been made here, I'm fairly happy I have a good enough understanding of the Treaty to make an informed choice on it.

isocket wrote: »

The original treaty document is Bible like in it's obscurity & you know it.
The consolidated version is not the original document, thus it cannot hold the same legal weight.

There's nothing biblical about it.
99% of people know that's not true. Or is it 102%? I get carried away when I make up figures.

isocket wrote: »

BTW, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell ya, just sign here please ....;)

Right, yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a simpleton. We get it.

We should know our place and vote how you say, coz we is all too dum-dum to unnerstand the biiiiig dock-you-ment.

Again, just because you are unable to understand something, doesn't mean everyone else is.

MikeC101

isocket wrote: »

(I can send you a pic of that bridge btw, it's luverly mate, honestly, there's even room for migrant workers for you & Pat Cox to exploit to your hearts content....)

You might do better in peddling your views if you could just try, just a little, to stop being so condescending to people with opposing viewpoints.

marco_polo

isocket wrote: »

Most entertaining.
Evidently, the logic of not signing any legal document you do not understand has passed you.
If you are seriously claiming to understand, in full, the Lisbon Treaty then your a better Europhile than Charlie McCreavy or Garret Fitzgerald, both of whom admit to it's incomprehension.

(I can send you a pic of that bridge btw, it's luverly mate, honestly, there's even room for migrant workers for you & Pat Cox to exploit to your hearts content....)

Well I have a nice consolidated version which tell me all I need to know. Your legal argument is bogus because there are numerous examples of ammending treaties in international law.


Here is the Nice treaty which is often held up as so much clearer than lisbon. The people who claim this fail to realise that they were also reading a consolidated version of the text. And so was Amsterdam before it.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12001C/htm/C_2001080EN.000101.html

Scofflaw

While the issue of the complexity of the Treaty bears a certain passing relevance to whether people have read it, it's also an argument that's been done to death repeatedly. Clearly not everybody considers the Treaty an unreadable work, and many of us have read it, so claims that it is unreadable amount to calling everyone liars.

Back on topic, and the usual thread spoilers are to stop thread spoiling, otherwise they'll be politely required to leave the forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

dermot_sheehan

Yes,

consolidated version of course

K-9

gabhain7 wrote: »

Yes,

consolidated version of course

+1. SO yes.

If it's so unreadable why are UKIP, Coir, SF and Libertas so SURE in what Lisbon means?

Surely if it's impossible to read, that would be the one and only defence?
Lisbon is unintelligible, so therefore nobody can form an opinion on it?

humanji

I've read it all, read the consolidated version, the guides and anything else I could find. And for the most part I didn't understand it. So I spent a good long time harrassing people to explain the details. And apart from helping me to decide which way to vote, I've also realised that there's f*ck all reason for the average person to be voting on this since it has f*ck all to do with most of us and we elect people to deal with this sh*te for us.

No matter what the outcome, I can't wait for this vote to be over.

humanji

K-9 wrote: »

+1. SO yes.

If it's so unreadable why are UKIP, Coir, SF and Libertas so SURE in what Lisbon means?

Surely if it's impossible to read, that would be the one and only defence?
Lisbon is unintelligible, so therefore nobody can form an opinion on it?

Stop bringing logic into this.

Running Bing

isocket wrote: »

Lets' have some honesty here on this forum.
Would you sign a mortgage agreement, or any other legal document, with out reading &, more importantly, understanding every damn word of it?
99% of readers on this forum have not read the actual treaty & they know it.
It is an act of insanity, therefore, to vote yes to something you have not & cannot read, because, to paraphrase Charlie McCreevy, it would be an act of insanity to try!

People, you really need to wise up on this!

...and Id wager the other 1% dont fully understand the implications of it.

Agree a "yes" vote is a strange decision in this instance.

Similar arguments against the no vote ring hollow as a no vote is a vote to maintain the status quo. A no vote is a much more rational choice if you dont understand the treaty. A yes vote is a vote for change with unforeseen potentially detrimental implications.

dermot_sheehan

How many voters in 1937 think read the Constitution?

How many understood its implications or could anticipate the constitutional jurisprudence that would flow from it?

Very little I guess,

voters don't need to read large, complicated legal texts cover to end, they just need to rely on interpretations from people they trust. Similarly I doubt people have read their mortgage agreement/the conveyance for their house or any other complicated legal documents they'll deal with during their life times without the benefit of legal advice.


In 1937 about half the country trusted Dev, about half opposed him. The constitution was passed with just over a majority.

Many ridiculous scare stories from that era too about how the position of president was a dictatorship for Dev.

Tarobot

Running Bing wrote: »

A no vote is a much more rational choice if you dont understand the treaty. A yes vote is a vote for change with unforeseen potentially detrimental implications.

*sigh* - the idea the a No vote will keep the status quo is incorrect. I know this has been done to death but there are consequences to a No vote, just as there are consequences to a Yes vote.

If you don't know - educate yourself. And if you really can't be bothered, do the rest of us a favour and stay at home.

is_that_so

gabhain7 wrote: »

How many voters in 1937 think read the Constitution?

How many understood its implications or could anticipate the constitutional jurisprudence that would flow from it?

Very little I guess,

voters don't need to read large, complicated legal texts cover to end, they just need to rely on interpretations from people they trust. Similarly I doubt people have read their mortgage agreement/the conveyance for their house or any other complicated legal documents they'll deal with during their life times without the benefit of legal advice.


In 1937 about half the country trusted Dev, about half opposed him. The constitution was passed with just over a majority.

Many ridiculous scare stories from that era too about how the position of president was a dictatorship for Dev.

He wasn't president, Douglás de hÍde was. Dev became president in 1959. On topic I've read the Consolidated version of the treaty and about 50% of the Treaty on the function of the EU.

Mena

I've read it cover to cover, and I can't even vote!

dermot_sheehan

is_that_so wrote: »

He wasn't president, Douglás de hÍde was. Dev became president in 1959. On topic I've read the Consolidated version of the treaty and about 50% of the Treaty on the function of the EU.

I am aware of that, he was Taoiseach. There was concern among those that opposed the constitution, in hindsight sill irrational concern, that the position of president under the new constitution was a dictator like position setup for de valera.

nesf

gabhain7 wrote: »

How many voters in 1937 think read the Constitution?

How many understood its implications or could anticipate the constitutional jurisprudence that would flow from it?

Very little I guess,

voters don't need to read large, complicated legal texts cover to end, they just need to rely on interpretations from people they trust. Similarly I doubt people have read their mortgage agreement/the conveyance for their house or any other complicated legal documents they'll deal with during their life times without the benefit of legal advice.


In 1937 about half the country trusted Dev, about half opposed him. The constitution was passed with just over a majority.

Many ridiculous scare stories from that era too about how the position of president was a dictatorship for Dev.

I actually find it pretty bizarre that people are saying "Well you'd read every page of a mortgage agreement wouldn't you!". I mean, we have solicitors for that kind of crap, we pay them (obscene) fees so that we don't have to muddle through all possibly relevant pieces of legislation attached to the sale of a property/whatever.

Red Sleeping Beauty

gabhain7 wrote: »

How many voters in 1937 think read the Constitution?

How many understood its implications or could anticipate the constitutional jurisprudence that would flow from it?

Very little I guess,

voters don't need to read large, complicated legal texts cover to end, they just need to rely on interpretations from people they trust. Similarly I doubt people have read their mortgage agreement/the conveyance for their house or any other complicated legal documents they'll deal with during their life times without the benefit of legal advice.


In 1937 about half the country trusted Dev, about half opposed him. The constitution was passed with just over a majority.

Many ridiculous scare stories from that era too about how the position of president was a dictatorship for Dev.

Why does the Lisbon Treaty get compared to Constitution of Ireland ? One is a constitution and the other is a treaty that's supposed to not be a rewritten constitution in treaty form.


Me, I tried reading the first version with all the amendments but then got the consolidated one in print from the EU office on Moleworth St. and read that. So my vote will be based on what I've read in the treaty not someone else's interpretation.

Have the people who've read the Treaty also read the treaties it ammends (TEU and TEC)? If we're talking about what's admissible in a court then surely you'd need to have an understanding of them two previous treaties.

marco_polo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Why does the Lisbon Treaty get compared to Constitution of Ireland ? One is a constitution and the other is a treaty that's supposed to not be a rewritten constitution in treaty form.


Me, I tried reading the first version with all the amendments but then got the consolidated one in print from the EU office on Moleworth St. and read that. So my vote will be based on what I've read in the treaty not someone else's interpretation.

Have the people who've read the Treaty also read the treaties it ammends (TEU and TEC)? If we're talking about what's admissible in a court then surely you'd need to have an understanding of them two previous treaties.

If you are reading the consolidated version then that contains all that remains from the previous treaties as well.

BlitzKrieg

Have the people who've read the Treaty also read the treaties it ammends (TEU and TEC)? If we're talking about what's admissible in a court then surely you'd need to have an understanding of them two previous treaties.

It notes which articles are fom the TEC/TEU treaties of Nice and you can compared quite quickly to see the changes.

Its no surprise that certain campaigns have been using articles that are unchanged from Nice as arguments against Lisbon. (people's movement are the most prominant cause they stick the article numbers on their leafles and it easy to see the mistake.)

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Why does the Lisbon Treaty get compared to Constitution of Ireland ? One is a constitution and the other is a treaty that's supposed to not be a rewritten constitution in treaty form.


Me, I tried reading the first version with all the amendments but then got the consolidated one in print from the EU office on Moleworth St. and read that. So my vote will be based on what I've read in the treaty not someone else's interpretation.

Have the people who've read the Treaty also read the treaties it ammends (TEU and TEC)? If we're talking about what's admissible in a court then surely you'd need to have an understanding of them two previous treaties.

I have - and if your concern is over any particular article, please feel free to use the search engine at lisbonexposed.org, which allows you to see the post-Lisbon and pre-Lisbon articles side by side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stabshauptmann

Scofflaw wrote: »

Read it, summarised it, compared it to Nice, and produced a searchable version with Lisbon & Nice next to each other - here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What an amazing resource, why didnt you publicise this more!

Scofflaw

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

What an amazing resource, why didnt you publicise this more!

Lack of time, really. I keep meaning to get together with some like-minded people and get some sort of "Internet for Democracy and Transparency" think-tank going, which would help to provide the resources to do - and to publicise - this sort of thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wheely

I have also read it. Cover to cover.

robindch

I read around two-thirds of it without any difficulty. From an earlier post:

...it's really not a difficult read at all, though a few salt and pepper shakers, and perhaps some cutlery, certainly do help to visualize how decisions move back and forth from institution to institution.

What struck me most of all is how many caveats there are to everything. And caveats upon caveats. Upon caveats.

Frankly, from my memory of reading as far as I did, the EU would have trouble agreeing to launch a six-inch paper boat down the Liffey, let alone demand the townsfolk of Ballydehob conscript themselves into somebody's euroarmy.

But a good step in the right direction nonetheless.

Mark200

I've skimmed through it, and always referred to it when a certain claim was made and an article referenced.

ayumi

i don't understand it,can some1 explain what the consequences of it?

WeeBushy

ayumi wrote: »

i don't understand it,can some1 explain what the consequences of it?

Bit late now isn't it...

To steal a post from sink to sum up some of the key positives for you however:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60775332&postcount=57

meglome

I checked different text in it initially. Then read most of the consolidated version. Certainly not a riveting read but not too bad. And to be honest I was kinda perplexed by a lot of the venom from the No campaign.

prinz

meglome wrote: »

I checked different text in it initially. Then read most of the consolidated version. Certainly not a riveting read but not too bad. And to be honest I was kinda perplexed by a lot of the venom from the No campaign.

Take it into the toilets at Burger King, all the good stuff was written in invisible ink!

meglome

prinz wrote: »

Take it into the toilets at Burger King, all the good stuff was written in invisible ink!

I try not to hang around the toilets of burger restaurants, people get the wrong idea for some reason. But what do judges know.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I put my copy of the Treaty in the attic along with the govt.'s white paper and some other brochures, texts and leaflets I'd picked up. My room was awash with everything Lisbon. Very glad it's over now.