The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies

Sam Vimes

IrelandSpirit, if you don't understand the treaty and don't feel confident enough to make a judgement on it, why make a judgement on it? You don't have to vote just for the sake of it and both a yes or no can have consequences so why not leave the decision to people who do understand the ramifications of their vote?

The preferable scenario would of course be that you do your best to understand it and make an informed vote, it's not that complicated but I can't condone rejecting the treaty out of fear. I think this treaty will be extremely beneficial for Ireland, the EU and the world (through increased focus on climate change) and that an uninformed no vote will damage Ireland's reputation and I don't want myself and the millions who want this treaty to be denied it because of people who can't make up their minds and are sacred of change

IrelandSpirit

Sam Vines. I’m glad someone’s read the thing and actually understood it! Well done. I bow my head, and tip my hat in the presence of outstanding brilliance. I mean it, if that’s true what you say.

BTW, where did you study law?

Because believe me, unless you have a good command of legalese, acts and statutes, and commercial law in all its loopy glory you will not understand that treaty. Period. You might ‘think’ you do, and you might even come close on some points, but the bottom line is it’s not written for us. If it were, we could all just sit back and read the thing as easily as a Harry Potter novel, and be confident we’ve fully understood what we’ve read.

What we ‘think’ we understand about this treaty is not the issue – opinions and interpretations are not what we’re being asked to vote on.

Just to get some perspective on this: The US Constitution with all 27 amendments runs to a mere 18 pages, and 7,600 words is sufficient to render it comprehensible to most people. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, about the same at some 7,500 words.

The old European Constitution ran to a whopping 349 pages, and consisted of 67,850 words. And as promised, this new ‘revised’ version has been reduced, to 287 pages, and yet consists of 76,250 words. As I mentioned earlier, evidently they merely reduced the font size of the text, to accommodate the higher word count on a lower page count. Why?

That in itself would immediately put anybody’s shackles up.

I voted NO the last time on principle. Ireland is a republic, a sovereign nation, (‘six counties short of a nation’ as I’m often reminded when talking with some people, but sovereign none the less) and I felt our autonomy would be compromised if the bulk of our decision making was centralised elsewhere. Mattered not where to me, if that’s the EU, Britain or wherever. And voting to be governed under a constitution other than our own would’ve demonstrated we’re incapable of governing ourselves. Perhaps we are – the fact that nobody in government on the ‘yes side’ had even read the EU Constitution was farcical to the extreme. And unethical: The fact they were willing have their fellow countrymen sign contracts they’d not even read themselves. And you’re accusing me of being scared of things?

Yeah, too fecking right! Guilty as charged.

And trouble not my friend; I most certainly have made my mind up.

You obviously feel this treaty’s gonna be good for Ireland, and I commend the fact you have that sentiment at heart. I wish I could be more trusting, or better said I wish we had politicians we can trust. I’ve seen little this time round to suggest that anything has changed. I trust our government and what they say about as much as a dodgy car salesman.

I’m glad I came to this thread – The Lisbon Treaty For Dummies – at last I’ve found someone to enlighten me! Ok, if understanding this treaty is not that difficult, as you say, please explain it for us.

Sam Vimes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Sam Vines. I’m glad someone’s read the thing and actually understood it! Well done. I bow my head, and tip my hat in the presence of outstanding brilliance. I mean it, if that’s true what you say.

BTW, where did you study law?

Because believe me, unless you have a good command of legalese, acts and statutes, and commercial law in all its loopy glory you will not understand that treaty. Period. You might ‘think’ you do, and you might even come close on some points, but the bottom line is it’s not written for us. If it were, we could all just sit back and read the thing as easily as a Harry Potter novel, and be confident we’ve fully understood what we’ve read.

I haven't read the treaty, I've read the important parts and summarised versions and explanations of the important issues and I've come across nothing that would make me vote no that didn't turn out to be a lie. I know it wasn't written for us, that's why it wasn't put to a referendum in other countries and it's part of the reason I don't want to stand in the way of its ratification. It's written in complicated language because it has to be to cover as many eventualities as possible but that doesn't mean I should vote it down if I don't understand it, it means I should find an explanation that makes sense and doesn't come from someone with an agenda

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

What we ‘think’ we understand about this treaty is not the issue – opinions and interpretations are not what we’re being asked to vote on.

Just to get some perspective on this: The US Constitution with all 27 amendments runs to a mere 18 pages, and 7,600 words is sufficient to render it comprehensible to most people.

The US is one country, the EU is 27. And along with the constitution the US has books and books of other laws. This treaty covers all that too, it completely defines how the nations interact and how the union functions

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I voted NO the last time on principle. Ireland is a republic, a sovereign nation, (‘six counties short of a nation’ as I’m often reminded when talking with some people, but sovereign none the less) and I felt our autonomy would be compromised if the bulk of our decision making was centralised elsewhere. Mattered not where to me, if that’s the EU, Britain or wherever. And voting to be governed under a constitution other than our own would’ve demonstrated we’re incapable of governing ourselves.

We're not voting on a constitution, we're voting on yet another treaty. Lots of our laws are already made in Brussels. The only way to get what you describe is to leave the EU

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You obviously feel this treaty’s gonna be good for Ireland, and I commend the fact you have that sentiment at heart. I wish I could be more trusting, or better said I wish we had politicians we can trust. I’ve seen little this time round to suggest that anything has changed. I trust our government and what they say about as much as a dodgy car salesman.

I don't trust our politicians, I trust the multitude of other people, groups and nations that support this treaty and have explained any issues I might have had with it

IrelandSpirit

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I haven't read the treaty, I've read the important parts and summarised versions and explanations of the important issues and I've come across nothing that would make me vote no that didn't turn out to be a lie. I know it wasn't written for us, that's why it wasn't put to a referendum in other countries and it's part of the reason I don't want to stand in the way of its ratification. It's written in complicated language because it has to be to cover as many eventualities as possible but that doesn't mean I should vote it down if I don't understand it, it means I should find an explanation that makes sense and doesn't come from someone with an agenda


The US is one country, the EU is 27. And along with the constitution the US has books and books of other laws. This treaty covers all that too, it completely defines how the nations interact and how the union functions


We're not voting on a constitution, we're voting on yet another treaty. Lots of our laws are already made in Brussels. The only way to get what you describe is to leave the EU



I don't trust our politicians, I trust the multitude of other people, groups and nations that support this treaty and have explained any issues I might have had with it

Fair play to ya then, believe it or not I’m not here to try and change your mind. You appear to be coming from a good place, and if you (or anybody) feel you’ve received genuine advice in regard the content of this treaty, then that has to be respected.

You’re right though, in regards the EU making lots of our laws. I realised that too a long time ago, and I’m beginning to suspect what they’ve known all along – Ireland never had sovereignty in the first place. It’s just a word. I think that’s the reason our politicians didn’t even bother reading the last EU Constitution (or treaty – same thing in my mind: contract)

Our economy is already centralised in Europe anyway, the money we use in our daily affairs is coined by private banks: for profit corporations lend us money, which we then have to pay back at interest. How? Can’t, there’s never enough money in circulation to cover the interest on the loan. Pay with what, then? Ever-increasing taxation, our labour, our resources and infrastructure – until eventually they’ll own everything. In the simplest terms possible, that’s how things really work.

We’ll never regulate our own affairs if we’re not in control of the most essential elements of our lives...

I’m inclined to agree with a previous post: as a nation we don’t really question enough, question who’s really in control of our economy, our justice system, our natural resources – the most basic requirements of nationhood eludes us. And what’s worse, perhaps the majority of us don’t even care; perhaps we’d rather someone else had the responsibility anyway.

:mad:

roosh

chachabinx wrote: »

Hey I voted no the last time because I didn't agree with the Lisbon Treaty at the time. I can't even remember now why I voted no but I plan to vote no again because I don't think my vote should change because we ran into a bit of trouble.

I am an intelligent person but I know nothing about politics. And the reason for this? I SIMPLY DON'T CARE! When Im watchin it on TV my brain litterally switches off. Is anybody else like this?

Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...

If you are not sure then you should vote No, because a No vote keeps things the way they are in terms of how the EU operates. Voting Yes will have no impact on economic recovery.

Ask yourself, if you someone asked you to do something, and you were not sure about why you should do it, would you do it?

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ask yourself, if you someone asked you to do something, and you were not sure about why you should do it, would you do it?

If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.

ei.sdraob

MarkK wrote: »

If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.

UKIP are worse than the Tories

IrelandSpirit

MarkK wrote: »

If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.

Hmmm, true, not good bed-fellows on either side there imho, but at he risk of upsetting yet another Tony Blair fan, I suggest you look at:


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100003428/hail-tony-blair-president-of-europe-by-the-grace-of-gordon/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

All Hail Tony Blair, President OF Europe!

roosh

MarkK wrote: »

If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.

If all those telling you to vote Yes stood to gain personally, while those telling you to vote no didn't really stand to gain much at all, would you question it then?

Even if those telling you to vote Yes are giving you no valid reasons to do so? If those telling you to vote Yes are using empty rhetoric, designed to play on our fear of lack of economic recovery, when in actual fact the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?

When those telling you to vote No are using rhetoric that actually does highlight pertinent issues, such as the trend of the EU to favour businesses over the people of Europe, when those people don't have an overly strong voice?

IrelandSpirit

Forget economic recovery entirely, imo, 'our' bank's in Frankfurt... though maybe if they get a resounding YES! Maybe if we let them hear we’re sorry; let them see Ireland clambering onside they might throw us a bone or two off the proverbial banquet table. Seems to me that's what some people are hoping for...

ferngully

Ok,,,,,
I voted yes last time .....
Because Turkey was about to Join and I was and am concerned with Human-Rights.....

I was in the Post Office a week before the Vote last time and a farmer in front of me was saying he would vote No because if the Vote was Yes he would have to look after his live stock better......

Only 85 people out of 385 voted last time where I live...
I live in a rural area and the biggest turn out to vote was from farmers.....

I also voted Yes to push through the EU water frameworks directive......

The Potable water supplies are terrible and as for the Waste water systems......(Human and Animal)

There has been a lot of money from the EU for that......

Some Catzzzz are getting Fat on the Cream of the EU:pac:

ei.sdraob

ferngully wrote: »

Ok,,,,,
I voted yes last time .....
Because Turkey was about to Join and I was and am concerned with Human-Rights.....

I was in the Post Office a week before the Vote last time and a farmer in front of me was saying he would vote No because if the Vote was Yes he would have to look after his live stock better......

Only 85 people out of 385 voted last time where I live...
I live in a rural area and the biggest turn out to vote was from farmers.....

I also voted Yes to push through the EU water frameworks directive......

The Potable water supplies are terrible and as for the Waste water systems......(Human and Animal)

There has been a lot of money from the EU for that......

Some Catzzzz are getting Fat on the Cream of the EU:pac:

if you are concerned about Human Rights

then vote YES

to make sure the European Human Rights Charter is ratified


/

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

when in actual fact the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?

Can you prove to me that it is a fact that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?
I'd also like next weeks Lotto numbers, but send them by PM, I don't want everyone to see.

IrelandSpirit

ferngully wrote: »

Ok,,,,,
I voted yes last time .....
Because Turkey was about to Join and I was and am concerned with Human-Rights.....

I was in the Post Office a week before the Vote last time and a farmer in front of me was saying he would vote No because if the Vote was Yes he would have to look after his live stock better......

Only 85 people out of 385 voted last time where I live...
I live in a rural area and the biggest turn out to vote was from farmers.....

I also voted Yes to push through the EU water frameworks directive......

The Potable water supplies are terrible and as for the Waste water systems......(Human and Animal)

There has been a lot of money from the EU for that......

Some Catzzzz are getting Fat on the Cream of the EU:pac:

LOL! yep, fat catzzz got the cream. Agreed, our water, rivers, beaches are being increasingly f**cked with everything from chemical fertiliser to landfill run-off, corruption is rife here as everywhere – but that’s still no reason to vote yes…

unless you mean the EU’s finally banned fluoride in all member states, back in April I think. Which is probably the best thing they’ve done for us so far in regards health and human rights, though our government continues to ignore it.

roosh

carlmango11 wrote: »

If you don't understand it, don't vote. You shouldn't make an important decision on something you don't understand.

I would say, if you don't understand it vote No, because that is the only way of keeping things as they are and prehaps giving you more time to understand it, or god forbid, give the political parties in this country the impetus to provide us with the necessary information, and an open debate on it.

If you are not completely sure about it vote No, it is the rational thing to do

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

If you are not completely sure about it vote No, it is the rational thing to do

Actually, the rational thing to do is to either not vote at all, or vote the same way as whatever political party you support recommends.

roosh

MarkK wrote: »

Actually, the rational thing to do is to either not vote at all, or vote the same way as whatever political party you support recommends.

You'll have to explain the rationale there.

If I am not sure about something adopting certain changes, then the rational thing to do is not to adopt those changes until I am sure about them.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

You'll have to explain the rationale there.

If I am not sure about something adopting certain changes, then the rational thing to do is not to adopt those changes until I am sure about them.

in other words

if you dont know vote no

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

You'll have to explain the rationale there.

If I am not sure about something adopting certain changes, then the rational thing to do is not to adopt those changes until I am sure about them.

In short, "no change" is not an option, the world is changing all the time, both "Yes" and "No" will have consequences. There is a separate thread on this.

Anyway, why are you expecting me to prove myself when you have not bothered to prove your assertion that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?

ferngully

Well said Irelandspirit...
It was banned earlier this year....
Yep there should be no Sodium Fluoride in our water supplies......
Still so few people know there are two forms of Fluoride-Sodium and Calcium.....
Toxic-Sodium Fluoride...
In small doses beneficial-Calcium Fluoride....

So why in the first place start adding sodium fluoride..
Also isnt it also banned from food and drink?
Yep Hats off to EU for that.....

I finally had my mind made up to vote Yes after I heard that people were voting No in order to keep animal welfare to a minimum to make more profit.....
My vote was to balance the one person I heard.....

In my mind better than doing nothing.....:cool:

bazzer06

mangaroosh wrote: »

I would say, if you don't understand it vote No, because that is the only way of keeping things as they are and prehaps giving you more time to understand it, or god forbid, give the political parties in this country the impetus to provide us with the necessary information, and an open debate on it.

If you are not completely sure about it vote No, it is the rational thing to do

Surely everyone's had enough time to go and understand it! If people haven't made an effort to go and get informed by now, then IMO they simply shouldn't vote at all. They've had plenty of time, and to be honest it smacks of civic laziness and apathy to me.

Also, to those comparing the Lisbon Treaty with the US Constitution (etc) - couple of points about that...

You may be able to understand the US Constitution - as in able to read it - but to really understand what it means you have to read all the case law too. Why do you think people study constitutional law? (An example is our "unenumerated rights doctrine" in Ireland, where the courts have derived several constitutionally guaranteed rights from TWO WORDS! ("in particular") If anything, the enormous complexity of the Lisbon treaty is far more democratic, as it stems somewhat from the Napoleonic law tradition of writing as much of the law down as possible. The treaty comes from negotiation and cooperation of democratically elected governments, and so the fact that so much of what needs to be said has been said, and leaves less wiggle room for courts with a far less democratic foundation, can only be good for democracy in Europe.

Also, the whole fear that seems to exist about the constitutional nature of the Lisbon Treaty is unfounded - all EU treaties already supersede the Irish constitution in European Union matters. The Lisbon treaty does - in particular by way of the Fundamental Rights Charter - effectively give the EU more areas on which to rule, but in particularly sensitive areas, due to the legal guarantees now appended to the Treaty, a similar approach to the "margin of appreciation" idea currently used by the European Court of Human Rights will more than likely be adopted i.e. rulings will account for the particular constitutional ideals of a country as well as ruling on the European Charter in question.

Also, any fears about some tyrannical president of the European Union are without base too - the president will have the same powers as the president of the Council has at the moment, only will exercise them for longer - this means its for simple convenience to have one person do the job for five years than have 10 people do it in 6 month blocks. It will simply bring more continuity and stability to what the order of the day in council is.

I think the strange reality of the Treaty is that what it mostly does is set in stone a state of affairs that already exists, and the most important changes it makes are towards addressing the democratic deficit in the EU by making its decision making more transparent and less complex, by giving more power to the European Parliament, by allowing review of legislation by national parliaments and by writing down on paper the way in which the Union functions, thus diminishing the ability of the European Court of Justice to "fill in the gaps" as it has in the past.

IrelandSpirit

Must be the fluoride, but i can't see the rational either...

Edit. Pre-emptive post.

ferngully

I reckon your right Irelandspirit.....

My thought are if you have any thoughts emotions feelings etc that draws you to vote after some research then go for it....

If not stay at home and use your ballet paper to light the fire,,,(may have trouble with that if its glossy paper),,,

spudington16

chachabinx wrote: »

Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...

A wasted vote is always a shame in a democracy, provided the voter knows what he/she is voting for/against. However, your voting no (again) solely because you couldn't be bothered getting full information about the treaty is actually probably in my view worse than if you didn't vote at all this time around.

I'm not advocating either side here, but any outcome of this referendum will have ramifications, so the decision to accept or reject it shouldn't be taken on a whim, or worse to spite the Government, as other posters have suggested.

IrelandSpirit

Bazzer06, not sure you should put your faith too much in Napoleonic Law: if you were a defendant you were considered guilty until proved innocent, rather than innocent until proved guilty.

You're right though, that does seem to be the direction the EU are heading.

ei.sdraob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Bazzer06, not sure you should put your faith too much in Napoleonic Law: if you were a defendant you were considered guilty until proved innocent, rather than innocent until proved guilty.

You're right though, that does seem to be the direction the EU are heading.

and what direction would that be according to you?

IrelandSpirit

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and what direction would that be according to you?

To hell in a basket :eek:

IrelandSpirit

ferngully wrote: »

Well said Irelandspirit...
It was banned earlier this year....
Yep there should be no Sodium Fluoride in our water supplies......
Still so few people know there are two forms of Fluoride-Sodium and Calcium.....
Toxic-Sodium Fluoride...
In small doses beneficial-Calcium Fluoride....

So why in the first place start adding sodium fluoride..
Also isnt it also banned from food and drink?
Yep Hats off to EU for that.....

I finally had my mind made up to vote Yes after I heard that people were voting No in order to keep animal welfare to a minimum to make more profit.....
My vote was to balance the one person I heard.....

In my mind better than doing nothing.....:cool:

That's actually very worrying, what's the story with animal welfare?

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in other words

if you dont know vote no

nope, if you're not sure, vote to not change things

ei.sdraob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

To hell in a basket :eek:

please elaborate