Lisbon: Not Voting?

FionnMatthew

I'm sort of curious to find out if there's anyone who is interested in the topic of the Lisbon Treaty, but is thinking of abstaining from casting their vote in the referendum, for whatever reasons.

That's where I am at the moment, and actually what I did last time, and I'd like to know if anyone else is in the same way.

Well?

EDIT: I should have named this "Lisbon: Not Voting?" because it's not very descriptive. If a mod's around to do that, would be very grateful!

meglome

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I'm sort of curious to find out if there's anyone who is interested in the topic of the Lisbon Treaty, but is thinking of abstaining from casting their vote in the referendum, for whatever reasons.

That's where I am at the moment, and actually what I did last time, and I'd like to know if anyone else is in the same way.

Well?

EDIT: I should have named this "Lisbon: Not Voting?" because it's not very descriptive. If a mod's around to do that, would be very grateful!

I abstained the first time as I didn't know anything about the treaty and didn't really pay too much attention to the campaign. Obviously I've moved over to being a committed Yes voter for this one. I started campaigning for a Yes vote after seeing all the lies from the No campaign. The whole campaign from all sides has been pathetic and would put anyone off voting. That said I believe Lisbon is good for Ireland so my Yes vote is not in question.

FionnMatthew

Thanks, meglome.

I must confess to also believing, more or less on the basis of trust of people whose professional opinions and familiarity with EU law I trust, that a YES vote would be more shrewd.

But I consistently find myself asking myself, exactly how entitled am I to that belief? What backs it up?

It's easy to come by beliefs, especially if you understand "belief" to include the "beliefs" of all of those who take it on authority that a YES to Lisbon will cause <all manner of preposterous negative things, as reported by groups like COIR>.

I read through the treaty the last time (the unconsolidated version). I found that I understood quite a lot more in it than one might have been led to believe if one had listened to the pundits: "It's completely impenetrable, etc."

But, firstly, I found that its being unconsolidated the last time made parts of it opaque, since I didn't know what the content of the referenced articles were, and I simply didn't have the time to start going through the prior treaties, and following up references.

And, secondly, even for those references I did follow up, or whose content I had explained to me on Boards (during, perhaps, the most informed, respectable debate I encountered anywhere for the last LTR) made clear to me that it wasn't just the Lisbon Treaty that I had to understand, nor was it the two other treaties either, on their own, but pretty much the entire legal framework of the EU, and its workings, and the on-the-ground-realities of how it works, rather than just its legal blueprints, and the details of how state law and union law work together, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not about to launch into a spiel about how the Lisbon Treaty should be easier to understand. There are stories about how it's identical to the Constitution, except that it's harder to read. I don't know. I haven't read the Constitution. Sometimes, though, a document is complex because it needs to be, because what's it's trying to do is a complicated task. Why shouldn't that be the case for something like the treaty? I'm not at all sure that this isn't the case here, so who am I to say? I know that there are texts in my discipline, in Philosophy, that really couldn't be any easier to read, and yet are still very hard to read. So it's not that the onus is on the treaty to come to me, which I've heard so damn much over the last year and a half. It's that I can't really go the distance to come to the treaty.

I feel as if it's only people who've had the time to put years into academic research in international law in Europe, or people who've been working on the EU for decades, that have the sort of acquaintance necessary to render the sort of thick, thoroughgoing understanding of the Lisbon Treaty - who have the appropriate context within which to determine what it actually means.

It's unfeasible that I will ever have that level of understanding.

And, sure, these people might speak with some authority on it. But I feel as if relying so heavily on the authority of others in the casting of one's vote is, frankly, counterdemocratic, whether it's relying on the authority of people who I have determined are most likely to be trustworthy, or on the idle ravings of crackpot demagogues and groups of fantasists like COIR.

When it comes down to it, I don't know that I'm making the right decision. I won't, even at the maximal level of informedness available to me as regards this treaty, really ever know what I'm doing at all. Although I might have a slightly better idea than people who just throw their vote away on slogans and oracles, it's just not good enough. The belief that I have that YES is probably (and not in unequivocal terms) the best option for Lisbon just isn't well-founded enough a belief to make my civic duty anything other than abstention from the ballot.

So I sort of feel as if that's what I should do.

But what often pains me about the whole thing is that that's probably not what 95% of the people who vote are going to do, when I imagine that the percentage of people whose expertise qualifies their "beliefs" about the Lisbon treaty is probably quite a lot lower than 5%. So I still sort of feel as if the verdict that is eventually arrived at on the Lisbon Treaty is likely to be little better than if we'd thrown dice on it, so little will it have to do with its actual (buried) merits and drawbacks. And that pains me, because I feel as if that makes a mockery of democracy.

Euro_Kraut

As a side point, Fionn if you do conclude that you do not want to cast a ballot, I would you turn up on the day and spoil your vote. That way you get counted in the overall 'turnout' figure. It also demonstrate that a voter was engaged enough to vote but choose not to do so for whatever reason. If you do not cast a ballot that would be widely interpret as being disinterest or unaware the vote is taking place - which it is clear you are not.

spaceHopper

People have stood enfront of tanks in Chian and Burma, you have a right to vote which not everybody else has even if you don't know you should vote, a spoiled vote is still a vote.

Jeff Albertson

Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

Sam Vimes

Jeff Albertson wrote: »

Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

Yeah, I don't understand this whole cocaine and heroin thing but sure everyone's doing it so I might as well

jasonb

I have to say, I hate the 'you must vote, people have died to get to vote' argument.

I have a right to vote, not a duty. It's up to me if I want to vote or not. Sometimes I do vote, if I have an opinion on the vote itself ( for example, I will be voting on the 2nd ). Sometimes I don't vote, if I don't have an opinion on the topic. I think voting on a topic that you haven't taken the time to fully understand is far worse than choosing not to vote at all!

I don't agree that casting a spoilt ballot deliberately is an option. Yes, people who don't vote are looked at ( sometimes wrongly ) as not caring. But if you spoil your vote, you're lumped in with those who don't know how to use a pencil.

I've often thought that every ballot paper should have a 'None of the above' option. Say it's a local election, you can choose 'None Of The Above' if you want to show that you don't think any of the candidates are good enough. You're not spoiling your vote, and your opinion is still counted.

In the end, if you want to vote or not is entirely up to you, it's your right to choose.

J.

someoneok

Exactly. People go on about democracy this and democratic process that. Well if we had any form of real democracy we would not be voting on this again. Let them go back and come up with something which changes trade only if they have outdated procedures. It's obviously a red herring.

Stay out of our legal system Europe, Stay out of our affairs Europe. Go away Europe,we said NO. Democracy is obviously finished. We are now post-democratic as we have the past few times been put to a second vote on different issues including Nice. We are witnessing the big final push into a new system that most of us, when they get us there,wont want any part to play in. And no common law jurisdiction also. This will be replaced with Napoleonic law. This is very significant for those who can see what is really happening in Europe at the moment. Here's praying for a miracle!

meglome

Jeff Albertson wrote: »

Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

This is not the topic of the thread but if you're voting No because 'the majority of the Irish people voted No the last time' I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken in that belief. 28% of the electorate voted No, not anywhere near the majority of the population. Can I assume you will be voting Yes now or will you make up a different reason?

someoneok wrote: »

Exactly. People go on about democracy this and democratic process that. Well if we had any form of real democracy we would not be voting on this again. Let them go back and come up with something which changes trade only if they have outdated procedures. It's obviously a red herring.

Stay out of our legal system Europe, Stay out of our affairs Europe. Go away Europe,we said NO. Democracy is obviously finished. We are now post-democratic as we have the past few times been put to a second vote on different issues including Nice. We are witnessing the big final push into a new system that most of us, when they get us there,wont want any part to play in. And no common law jurisdiction also. This will be replaced with Napoleonic law. This is very significant for those who can see what is really happening in Europe at the moment. Here's praying for a miracle!

This is utter ****e. It really is very very sad that some people are happy to make out the EU is like North Korea, the same EU which was dragged this country out of the dark ages.

I want to vote Yes now, are my rights worth less than yours?

jasonb

Hmmm...

The only thing I will say is that being asked to vote again is not something I'd consider 'Undemocratic'. A vote was called by our Government ( not Europe ) and the response was No. The Government clearly weren't happy with this, the set out to find out why people voted no, and then set out to get reassurances about those reasons. Now they're asking us to vote again.

That all sounds very democratic to me to be honest. If the Government had ignored our No vote, *that* would be undemocratic. There's nothing stopping us voting No again, that's democracy to me! It's up to all of us to decide do we still feel the same way ( Yes or No ) and have these assurances by the Government settled some of the worries we had.

The Government, in my eyes, have the right to ask us to vote on whatever they want as often as they want. We have the right to say yes or not to that vote, and also to say yes or no to them being the Government again.

J.

RedPlanet

jasonb wrote: »

The Government, in my eyes, have the right to ask us to vote on whatever they want as often as they want. We have the right to say yes or not to that vote, and also to say yes or no to them being the Government again.

J.

Please remember that sentiment next time Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeadly holds a referenda to lift term limits in his country.

meglome

RedPlanet wrote: »

Please remember that sentiment next time Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeadly holds a referenda to lift term limits in his country.

And the nazi's got in by referendum blah blah blah.

RedPlanet

meglome wrote: »

And the nazi's got in by referendum blah blah blah.

Oh, so basically your what, saying we shouldn't have referenda?

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh, so basically your what, saying we shouldn't have referenda?

No, RedPlanet, that's not what he's saying. He's drawing your attention to the ridiculous comparison you used.

regards,
Scofflaw

jasonb

RedPlanet wrote: »

Please remember that sentiment next time Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeadly holds a referenda to lift term limits in his country.

Well, if Chavez does this, and the people of Venezuela vote Yes to it, and there are no irregularities with the votes, then that's the Venezuelan people's choice...

If however they vote no and it's ignored, or the vote is rigged, that's another story entirely...

Anyhow, to drag myself back on topic, it's up to each person to vote if they want to or not, and chosing not to vote is perfectly valid I think.

J.

Donalh

Jeff Albertson wrote: »

Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

Jeff Alberton, i really hope this is a joke!

RedPlanet

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, RedPlanet, that's not what he's saying. He's drawing your attention to the ridiculous comparison you used.

regards,
Scofflaw

It's not a ridiculous comparision at all.
On one hand we have a governement not satisfied with a referenda result, thereafter engaging fawning motions and holding the same refrenda again, within a comparitively short time.

On the other hand we have a goverment not satisified with a referenda result thereby (possibly?) holding the referenda again.

Different referenda yes, different results of the referenda passing of course, but the principle remains the same. The government didn't get the result they wanted therefore they run it again until they get the "correct" result.

someoneok

I see on this site there is a lot of bully tactics from those on the yes side. Any comment from a No side post gets vilified straight away and there is quite a few at it. Staged? Counter intelligence maybe? I know this government wants a yes vote desperately so it wouldn't surprise me if a few registered users on boards were being paid to push and demonize the no side.

I'm not saying this is fact I'm just saying the way I see it and anyone else who looks at it with eyes to see will agree in my opinion. This thread because of it's nature deals with those on the fence or those disenchanted and will get more attention from these kinds of demonizers. Hopefully this will shine a light on them so they can let the democratic process go ahead unhindered.

jasonb

RedPlanet wrote: »

The government didn't get the result they wanted therefore they run it again until they get the "correct" result.

I agree completely, that is what the Government are doing. They have an agenda, and part of that agenda is to pass the Lisbon treaty ( as an aside, it's not just the Government, FG and Labour have the same agenda, but it's the Government who have the power to call the Referendum. I'd imagine a FG / Labour Government would have called a second one again too ). So, they failed in their agenda and they're giving it another go.

Maybe it's just a fundamental difference of opinion between us, but I really don't see what's wrong with this. I don't have a problem with them asking us to vote again. Legally ( as I understand it ) they can keep asking us for as long as they want as far as I'm concerned ( though obviously I'd prefer them to spend their time on other issues ). We get a choice and it's up to us, not the Government. All they can do is keep on asking, we can say Yes or No.

The point I'm making is that I don't consider them asking us to vote again undemocratic. Them changing our vote or deciding without asking us to vote would be.

J.

ei.sdraob

someoneok wrote: »

I see on this site there is a lot of bully tactics from those on the yes side. Any comment from a No side post gets vilified straight away and there is quite a few at it. Staged? Counter intelligence maybe? I know this government wants a yes vote desperately so it wouldn't surprise me if a few registered users on boards were being paid to push and demonize the no side.

I'm not saying this is fact I'm just saying the way I see it and anyone else who looks at it with eyes to see will agree in my opinion. This thread because of it's nature deals with those on the fence or those disenchanted and will get more attention from these kinds of demonizers. Hopefully this will shine a light on them so they can let the democratic process go ahead unhindered.

what do you expect

some people create a new account (ahem ahem like yourself)

post the same lies and **** over and over again

dont back their claims up or engage in debate

then run away

rinse and repeat


/

jasonb

someoneok wrote: »

I see on this site there is a lot of bully tactics from those on the yes side. Any comment from a No side post gets vilified straight away and there is quite a few at it. Staged? Counter intelligence maybe? I know this government wants a yes vote desperately so it wouldn't surprise me if a few registered users on boards were being paid to push and demonize the no side.

I'm not saying this is fact I'm just saying the way I see it and anyone else who looks at it with eyes to see will agree in my opinion. This thread because of it's nature deals with those on the fence or those disenchanted and will get more attention from these kinds of demonizers. Hopefully this will shine a light on them so they can let the democratic process go ahead unhindered.

Personally I can't imagine the Government being competent enough to organise this ( especially one as unpopular as this one! ), but maybe I'm naive.

I don't care which way someone wants to vote, or whether they vote or not. All I'm saying is that I think asking us to vote again isn't undemocratic, I think chosing not to vote at all is perfectly valid and I'd prefer people to vote because they'd informed themselves of the issues as much as they could and then decided how they feel about it.

J.

meglome

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's not a ridiculous comparision at all.
On one hand we have a governement not satisfied with a referenda result, thereafter engaging fawning motions and holding the same refrenda again, within a comparitively short time.

On the other hand we have a goverment not satisified with a referenda result thereby (possibly?) holding the referenda again.

Different referenda yes, different results of the referenda passing of course, but the principle remains the same. The government didn't get the result they wanted therefore they run it again until they get the "correct" result.

But it is a ridiculous comparison. From what you're saying we should never vote just because we might make the wrong decision.

We are voting on a different package this time, it's as simple as that.

RedPlanet

meglome wrote: »

But it is a ridiculous comparison. From what you're saying we should never vote just because we might make the wrong decision..

No that's not what i'm saying at all.
I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.

meglome wrote: »

We are voting on a different package this time, it's as simple as that.

That is not true and you know that. We are voting on the exact same treaty. No change, nada.

jasonb

RedPlanet wrote: »

No that's not what i'm saying at all.
I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.
That is not true and you know that. We are voting on the exact same treaty. No change, nada.

For the first part, I see your point, referenda repeats in the past ( Divorce for example ) were much further apart, probably going with the concept that after maybe 10 years the demographic will have changed and the result could be different.

As far as I see it, with Lisbon, there are two differences with something like a Divorce Referendum. Firstly, it's more time specific, as it needs to be passed here to take effect throughout Europe etc. Secondly, something like the Lisbon Treaty is a lot harder to understand than 'Divorce : Yes or No' and the Government clearly believe ( rightly or wrongly ) that the reason No was voted the last time was because a lot of people didn't fully understand the treaty.

I agree with you, the treaty is the same. However, the difference this time, as far as the Government are concerned, is that they've got reassurances addressing some of the key fears about the treaty from the last vote. So that, along with the time pressures, are why they've called a second referendum relatively quickly...

J.

Euro_Kraut

RedPlanet wrote: »

No that's not what i'm saying at all.
I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.

Fair enough, you accpet the principle that referendum can and should be re run. You object is with the just timing.

Why do you think 10 years is more appropiate than say 5 years?

meglome

RedPlanet wrote: »

No that's not what i'm saying at all.
I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.

Well start campaigning for the next government to do that. Moaning after the fact is pointless.

RedPlanet wrote: »

That is not true and you know that. We are voting on the exact same treaty. No change, nada.

Treaty + guarantees = different package. Seems pretty simple.

RedPlanet

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Fair enough, you accpet the principle that referendum can and should be re run. You object is with the just timing.

Why do you think 10 years is more appropiate than say 5 years?

Better chance of a different government sitting.
Less chance of yeilding referenda as a means to badger the electorate to force an unpopular constitutional change.

RedPlanet

meglome wrote: »

Treaty + guarantees = different package. Seems pretty simple.

The guarantees are not contained the Treaty and, correct me if i am mistaken but are also not among the actual language of the referenda.
Therefore the "promised" guarantees are little more than air.

someoneok

The government has to give us a referendum on anything which has relevance to our constitution due to a man named Raymond Crotty.
A brief outline of the story can be viewed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitZC7yftA8&feature=player_embedded

meglome

RedPlanet wrote: »

The guarantees are not contained the Treaty and, correct me if i am mistaken but are also not among the actual language of the referenda.
Therefore the "promised" guarantees are little more than air.

It really amuses me that the Good Friday agreement was done using the exact same process and there wasn't a peep out of anyone. Sinn Fein were perfectly happy to accept the Good Friday agreement was legally binding and certainly there hasn't been the slightest legal challenge. But now using the exactly same UN process some people are trying to say our guarantees cannot be trusted. People really need to stop talking sideways out of their arses.

someoneok

Those legal guarantees are no more binding than a broken zip.
Anyone who pedals this kind of thing is as dangerous as a Jack the ripper in relation to this monumental decision we have. They are not legal they are token gestures. If the treaty had of been changed the 27 member states would have had to agree and re ratify.
These jibes and falsies are more evidence of the yes campaign scaremongering and playing on the fears of the naive. Do you realise how dangerous you people are?

Sam Vimes

someoneok wrote: »

Those legal guarantees are no more binding than a broken zip.
Anyone who pedals this kind of thing is as dangerous as a Jack the ripper in relation to this monumental decision we have. They are not legal they are token gestures. If the treaty had of been changed the 27 member states would have had to agree and re ratify.
These jibes and falsies are more evidence of the yes campaign scaremongering and playing on the fears of the naive. Do you realise how dangerous you people are?

RedPlanet wrote: »

The guarantees are not contained the Treaty and, correct me if i am mistaken but are also not among the actual language of the referenda.
Therefore the "promised" guarantees are little more than air.

The first person to say something negative about this treaty that's 100% true gets a cookie. I predict a very mouldy cookie going in the bin in a few weeks

Sam Vimes

By which I mean:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon

1. The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its wish to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009.

2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

3. The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers' rights, would be confirmed.

4. Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:
(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1);
(b) Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2). The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;
(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

you're both wrong

jasonb

someoneok wrote: »

Do you realise how dangerous you people are?

I personally think that both sides have spent far too much time trying to scare voters and far too little time trying to convince them.

This 'you people' worries me. It seems impossible to have differences of opinions without 'us and them' getting involved. It's human nature I guess, just like 'us and foreign nationals' and 'private sector and public sector'.

I look forward to the economy growing again and Lisbon being decided on one way or the other, so I don't have to spend so much time trying to ignore scare tactics and petty-mindedness ( if that's a word! ) day after day.

J.

roosh

I didn't vote in the last referendum, but I feel that the onus is on the Yes campaign to show me why I should vote to make changes, because voting No means that the changes that are already scheduled to come in will come in as planned. Yes changes all this.

If we vote Yes we will reduce our voting rights in the Council of Ministers, and increase others voting rights, thereby doubly weakening our say in Europe. As we have such a small population we will be a weak ally to anyone in Europe, so trying to get people to back us will be increasingly difficult.

I also take exception to the way in which all the major political parties have handled this. They have tried to fob us off with rhetoric and fallacious arguments, much as the No side have. The difference is, that the next Irish government will be eleceted from the Yes campaigners, it won't be from the No campaigners. If we vote Yes, we will be letting them know that lack of open discussion and debate is perfectly fine, that telling us lies and trying to scare us into supporting their cause, is an acceptible means of doing poilitics in this country.

That is why I am going to have to vote No

Euro_Kraut

RedPlanet wrote: »

Better chance of a different government sitting.
Less chance of yeilding referenda as a means to badger the electorate to force an unpopular constitutional change.

The 10 years is arbitrary then. If say those conditions could be met within a shorter time frame, say 8 years, would it be acceptable?

Also, do you think in light of this that the constitution should be amended to restrict the ability of Dail Eireann to propose similar constitutional changers within a certain time period?

RedPlanet

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The 10 years is arbitrary then.

No and No.
And, a BIG NO TO LISBON

Euro_Kraut

RedPlanet wrote: »

No and No.
And, a BIG NO TO LISBON

That makes no sense.

someoneok

Sam Vimes wrote: »

By which I mean:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

you're both wrong

Can you show me which part of the actual script of the Lisbon Treaty was changed from the last time, unless part of boards.ie is now a part of the text? NOTHING IN THIS HAS CHANGED. If it had of changed and and legal nonsense would have had to be agreed on by all 27 member states. This fact is irrefutable as those guarantees are not worth the oxygen used on them and people like you need to stop with this lie. Do you work in the government?

someoneok

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The first person to say something negative about this treaty that's 100% true gets a cookie. I predict a very mouldy cookie going in the bin in a few weeks

EU law supersedes Irish laws if ratified. Thats just one. There are many. Too many. Can I have my cookie now?

ei.sdraob

someoneok wrote: »

EU law supersedes Irish laws if ratified. Thats just one. There are many. Too many. Can I have my cookie now?

ffs

EU law supersedes Irish law in certain areas since 1973 when we joined

this doesnt change under Lisbon


you dont deserve a cookie for not doing your homework

/

Euro_Kraut

someoneok wrote: »

EU law supersedes Irish laws if ratified.

Really? Where does it say that?

Sam Vimes

someoneok wrote: »

Can you show me which part of the actual script of the Lisbon Treaty was changed from the last time, unless part of boards.ie is now a part of the text? NOTHING IN THIS HAS CHANGED. If it had of changed and and legal nonsense would have had to be agreed on by all 27 member states. This fact is irrefutable as those guarantees are not worth the oxygen used on them and people like you need to stop with this lie. Do you work in the government?

Firstly, while it's on boards, that's the text from the European council. Now, I'll give you an irrefutable fact:

NOTHING HAS CHANGED BECAUSE THE BULLSH!T THAT WE THOUGHT WAS IN THE TREATY WAS NEVER IN THE FUCKING THING.

We were lied to by extremists and our government had to go to Europe and tell them that the Irish people had been fooled and they needed guarantees that all of these lies were in fact lies. And now that we've got the guarantees people won't fucking believe them. We're making retards out of ourselves and it makes me ashamed to be Irish.

Sam Vimes

someoneok wrote: »

EU law supersedes Irish laws if ratified. Thats just one. There are many. Too many. Can I have my cookie now?

FAIL


EU law already supersedes ours. Next

oscarBravo

Calm down, Sam. Ta.