So what IS the truth about the "legal" guarantees?

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not following

Your applying the argumentum ad populum fallacy to my refusal to accept that these guarantees are a good excuse to re-run the referendum.

I could apply the same logic to every Yes poster here who tells me that 90 of all business leaders think a yes vote is important for economic recovery. Doesn't mean they are right or that the people in their organisations necessarily agree with them.

Do you see the comparison?

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Your applying the argumentum ad populum fallacy to my refusal to accept that these guarantees are a good excuse to re-run the referendum. I could apply the same logic to every Yes poster here who tells me that 90 of all business leaders think a yes vote is important for economic recovery. Doesn't mean they are right or that the people in their organisations necessarily agree with them.

Do you see the comparison?

When you're talking about random people it's an an argument ad populum but when you're talking about a group of experts it's called an argument from authority. Technically it's also a fallacy but in reality its the whole basis of the word "expert". If two groups of random people disagree it doesn't matter one bit how many there are on each side but if one of those groups is made up of people who are considered experts in the area it makes it far more likely that they're correct. It doesn't guarantee it but it increases the likelihood. It especially increases the likelihood if the other group have some preconception that biases them away from the consensus, such as creationists who don't want to let go of the bible or Irish people who have such a mistrust of our politicians that they don't want to believe anything they say, regardless of how thoroughly they prove what they're saying. Someone who is desperately looking for a gap in someone else's claim will always find one. Always

K-9

This thread is a good case for No Referenda, ever more, ironically.

It will be used like the Bible as proof.

Edit: I like my referenda but even I'm bored of this thread.

free-man

K-9 wrote: »

This thread is a good case for No Referenda, ever more, ironically.

It will be used like the Bible as proof.

Edit: I like my referenda but even I'm bored of this thread.

Agreed. Lets agree to disagree shall we?

Sam Vimes

K-9 wrote: »

This thread is a good case for No Referenda, ever more, ironically.

It really is. It's unfortunate but the average punter is far too easy to convince of whatever you want with a confident tone and a misquoted article.

That's why we have governments who employ experts

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It really is. It's unfortunate but the average punter is far too easy to convince of whatever you want with a confident tone and a misquoted article.

We agree on something.. at last!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's why we have governments who employ experts

You mean PR experts right :P

Only 2 more days to go and you can be mates with your neighbours again.. can't wait till this bloody result is in!

K-9

Great fun as it is, this is as close to Civil War politics as we'll probably get.

Probably not, as the EU will be forgotten about in a month.

vanla sighs

A very short yet interesting piece, see: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/top-lawyers-report-queries-guarantees-given-on-treaty-1899782.html

Can we really trust the government? Can we really trust them when they say these so-called guarantees are watertight?

Scofflaw

vanla sighs wrote: »

A very short yet interesting piece, see: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/top-lawyers-report-queries-guarantees-given-on-treaty-1899782.html

Can we really trust the government? Can we really trust them when they say these so-called guarantees are watertight?

Can we really trust "Lawyers Against Lisbon", which is who the "top lawyer" is part of? After all, they're just a campaign group who happen to be in the legal profession. Group members like Joe Noonan have opposed every single EU treaty.

If you have concerns about the guarantees, see here for the Referendum Commission's view on them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

vanla sighs wrote: »

A very short yet interesting piece, see: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/top-lawyers-report-queries-guarantees-given-on-treaty-1899782.html

Can we really trust the government? Can we really trust them when they say these so-called guarantees are watertight?

"But the lawyer, who was commissioned by the Independence and Democracy Group"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence/Democracy

Chaired by Nigel Farage MEP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

Political party United Kingdom Independence Party

FAIL

ixtlan

free-man wrote: »

I could apply the same logic to every Yes poster here who tells me that 90 of all business leaders think a yes vote is important for economic recovery. Doesn't mean they are right or that the people in their organisations necessarily agree with them.

The thing about that survey is that business leaders invest based to a large extent on confidence.

If 90% of those that create jobs think that a yes is important for recovery, it follows that they will feel worried about a no. If they are worried they are less likely to invest in job expansions.

So, the fact that they believe this, that it is their opinion, and the fact that recovery will be caused by their actions, leads to the fact that a no will have negative economic consequences.

An analogy would be if a judge who was going to be in charge of ruling on a legal issue offered an opinion on how the legal system would handle it.

Ix.

Sam Vimes

I was just thinking about the people who point out the guarantees aren't in the treaty and therefore we're not voting on them and they should not be considered.

Yesterday I was signing a contract. I read the entire thing and nowhere in it did it say that the company I was signing it with wasn't allowed to murder me once I signed. I read it front to back and it wasn't mentioned anywhere.

Now they looked up the Irish legislation about murder and showed me that, while it's not written explicitly in the contract, that I can refer there to see that they are are not allowed murder me and that there is no need to write it specifically in the contract, that it still applies

I walked out. I'm not falling for that one :rolleyes:

wynters

Hi all,

I've yet to cast my vote. Swaying heavily towards a Yes vote.

'Think I'm up to speed on almost everything except why the guarantees are to be reviewed in 3 years? Can anyone briefly explain who will review them and why they are to be reviewed in 3 years?

Sam Vimes

wynters wrote: »

Hi all,

I've yet to cast my vote. Swaying heavily towards a Yes vote.

'Think I'm up to speed on almost everything except why the guarantees are to be reviewed in 3 years? Can anyone briefly explain who will review them and why they are to be reviewed in 3 years?

the only thing that will possibly change in 3 years is the commissioner issue. In 3 years they're going to look at it and see if the commission is still functioning properly. They decided to reduce it in the first place because it's bloated and ineffective. Also, the commissioners don't represent their countries, they represent EU interests only.

Ireland still has a veto on the issue though

wynters

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the only thing that will possibly change in 3 years is the commissioner issue. In 3 years they're going to look at it and see if the commission is still functioning properly. They decided to reduce it in the first place because it's bloated and ineffective. Also, the commissioners don't represent their countries, they represent EU interests only.

Ireland still has a veto on the issue though

Thanks Sam, sorry of this sounds thick, but by that I take it you mean that the guarantees on Neutrality and right to life etc. will not be reviewed. And neither the Irish Government or the EU will seek to review them? Those guarantees are 'locked down' so to speak? Am I right?

marco_polo

wynters wrote: »

Hi all,

I've yet to cast my vote. Swaying heavily towards a Yes vote.

'Think I'm up to speed on almost everything except why the guarantees are to be reviewed in 3 years? Can anyone briefly explain who will review them and why they are to be reviewed in 3 years?

It is not a review of the guaranntees but of some of the opt outs we currently hold. We had originally signed up to the provisions of the Freedom and Justice title under the EU Consistution, but when Britain opted out of the Freedom and Justice areas during the Lisbon negotiations, we decided to do this as well. There will a review of our opt outs after three years, done by us alone, after which time we may decide to exercise our right to opt in to all, some or none of the articles.

Our Schengen opt out would not come into the remit of this review as to join this we would have to dissolve the Common Travel Area with Britain, which is highly improbable.

Sam Vimes

wynters wrote: »

Thanks Sam, sorry of this sounds thick, but by that I take it you mean that the guarantees on Neutrality and right to life etc. will not be reviewed. And neither the Irish Government or the EU will seek to review them? Those guarantees are 'locked down' so to speak? Am I right?

Well those issues are locked down anyway because they were never effected in any way by the treaty. They were clarifications of the contents of the treaty to correct widespread misconceptions. For example the taxation one:

SECTION B: TAXATION wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

The treaty does not change our position on tax. We have a veto on it today and we have a veto on it in 3 years. That cannot be changed without our consent

wynters

Ok, Thank you!