Libertas ad in the Sindo...?

--Kaiser--

Well guys, I haven't been following this whole Lisbon thing as much as I'd like, recently I've been swayed by some of the stuff posted here on the 'Yes' side...but yesterday I happened to see the 2 page ad in the Irish Independent stating a lot of reasons to vote no to Lisbon....now I know 'No' campaigners are not known for their honesty or knowledge of the Treaty text, but to the uninitiated it looks pretty convincing, has anyone seen this and know what I'm talking about?

ei.sdraob

if you can post any of the lies (im gonna be blunt by this stage) that bother you from that advert (i havent seen it)

we will happily explain things

cheers

OldJay

Just by the by, 'Sindo' is a nickname for the Sunday Independent.

rebelmind

Please post the ad text & I will demolish any arguments the yessmen have for breakfast.
Lying? The Yes side invented it in this campaign.

cornbb

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Well guys, I haven't been following this whole Lisbon thing as much as I'd like, recently I've been swayed by some of the stuff posted here on the 'Yes' side...but yesterday I happened to see the 2 page ad in the Irish Independent stating a lot of reasons to vote no to Lisbon....know I know 'No' campaigners are not known for their honesty or knowledge of then Treaty text, but to the uninitiated it looks pretty convincing, has anyone seen this and know what I'm talking about?

A lot of stuff posted by the No side looks convincing at first glance but I guarantee you that it is all demolished after just a little digging.

Tarobot

rebelmind wrote: »

Please post the ad text & I will demolish any arguments the yessmen have for breakfast.

That's funny - you haven't been able to do it once yet.

rebelmind wrote: »

Lying? The Yes side invented it in this campaign.

Seriously - that is just total nonsense. If the YES side are such good liars, why did someone take it upon themselves to make up a NO poster generator:

http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~theorie/nogenerator/

--Kaiser--

Don't have it to hand but here are some from the Libertas website, pretty much the same;

Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade & Foreign Direct Investment

Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling that of Germany

Creates an unelected President & a Foreign Minister of Europe

Hands over power in 60 areas of policy to Brussels - on everything from transport to employment and some aspects of foreign policy

Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law

The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

Diminishes Ireland's power to nominate our European Commissioner - Changes from 'nominate' to 'suggest'

Cheers

Sam Vimes

rebelmind wrote: »

Please post the ad text & I will demolish any arguments the yessmen have for breakfast.
Lying? The Yes side invented it in this campaign.

LOL

humanji

Tarobot wrote: »

That's funny - you haven't been able to do it once yet.


Seriously - that is just total nonsense. If the YES side are such good liars, why did someone take it upon themselves to make up a NO poster generator:

http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~theorie/nogenerator/

Lol, that's brilliant. "Coir And Libertas Gave You Fish And Chips. Vote No"

Sam Vimes

Ah the standard copypasta "reasons"

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling that of Germany

Creates an unelected President & a Foreign Minister of Europe

Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law

Not true

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Hands over power in 60 areas of policy to Brussels - on everything from transport to employment and some aspects of foreign policy

They're moving to QMV, we're not losing control over them

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

Only in certain very limited ways

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Diminishes Ireland's power to nominate our European Commissioner - Changes from 'nominate' to 'suggest'

Nominate and suggest mean the same thing. As it stands they don't have to accept our nominations

PopeBuckfastXVI

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Don't have it to hand but here are some from the Libertas website, pretty much the same;

Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade & Foreign Direct Investment
Not true, it allows the commission to negotiate on FDI, but doesn't stop individual countries from doing the same. Not exclusive: LIE

Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling that of Germany
Not true, this only takes the 'population' part of the voting, while ignoring the number of states requirement. Read this:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109
Lie of omission: LIE

Creates an unelected President & a Foreign Minister of Europe
Not true, there is already an unelected President of the European Council (not of Europe) which rotates between the member states every six months, Lisbon allows the council to elect the Council President for a term of 2.5 years, extendible to 5, in order to stop them from being lumped with someone useless through the rotation system, and give continuity of longer than six months. Position is not President of Europe, and is elected: LIE

Hands over power in 60 areas of policy to Brussels - on everything from transport to employment and some aspects of foreign policy
QMV is extended into new areas, I haven't personally seen any that concern me. You can decide for yourself here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055688349

Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
This is already the case, and has been since 1973: LIE

The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
The treaty can only be changed without a referendum in ways that currently wouldn't require a referendum. If any power or competence of the EU is extended our constitution will still require a referendum. Lie of omission: LIE

Diminishes Ireland's power to nominate our European Commissioner - Changes from 'nominate' to 'suggest'
The mechanism is exactly the same, only the word changes. Doesn't diminish anything:LIE

Cheers

Hope that helps...

ixtlan

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Creates an unelected President & a Foreign Minister of Europe

For the 10 millionth time... this is not a president of Europe. It is president of the council which is a chairman's role with no executive power. This is an improvement over the current situation where the position is filled by heads of state in rotation, over whom we have no say.

The foreign minister can only speak on matters for which there is unanimous agreement. We can veto anything we like, and I can guarantee you that if all 27 states agree on a foreign policy matter, it's going to be an issue that 99% of the people agree on.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Hands over power in 60 areas of policy to Brussels - on everything from transport to employment and some aspects of foreign policy

No aspects of foreign policy. All states retain a veto on foreign and military matters. The other areas I'll let others speak on but as far as I know they are not a problem, which is why people keep lying about foreign policy.

Ix.

Oafley Jones

humanji wrote: »

Lol, that's brilliant. "Coir And Libertas Gave You Fish And Chips. Vote No"

There was a fantastic Coir one on the Peoplesrepublicofcork yesterday. It was a picture of three goats, with "goats goats" written in the box on the left hand corner; fecking surreal and as relevant as the real things. Wish I could find it.

Tarobot

I'd also like to point out that given your current location is the seventh circle of hell and Coir says that voting YES would be a making a pact with the Devil, a YES vote makes perfect sense.

--Kaiser--

Thanks all, just what I expected

RandomName2

Justind wrote: »

Just by the by, 'Sindo' is a nickname for the Sunday Independent.

Yesss... the thread title made me have to have a look.

Seeing that the Sunday Indo has
'VOTE YES VOTE YES VOTE YES'
on every single page.
I assume Gay Byrne is still anti-Lisbon; but he would hardly get a say in the Indo at the moment. Gene Kerrigan has also been effectively shut up.

Nice!

cornbb

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yesss... the thread title made me have to have a look.

Seeing that the Sunday Indo has
'VOTE YES VOTE YES VOTE YES'
on every single page.
I assume Gay Byrne is still anti-Lisbon; but he would hardly get a say in the Indo at the moment. Gene Kerrigan has also been effectively shut up.

Nice!

The OP was talking about an anti-Lisbon ad in the Sindo...

Can you actually counteract anything that PopeBuckfast had to say?

/tumbleweed

--Kaiser--

I have to say that the 2 page ad (Libertas had 4 whole pages in the Indo yesterday) will probably sway a lot of people. If the referendum is defeated the government have only themselves to blame by not explaining the treaty properly

ei.sdraob

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I have to say that the 2 page ad (Libertas had 4 whole pages in the Indo yesterday) will probably sway a lot of people. If the referendum is defeated the government have only themselves to blame by not explaining the treaty properly

But thats the thing

whether there is a NO or YES they would continue receive their fat pensions

but we the people will be the ones living with the consequences if a NO vote for a long time to come

its not the governments job to educate the people, its up to the people to find out

/

meglome

ei.sdraob wrote: »

But thats the thing

whether there is a NO or YES they would continue receive their fat pensions

but we the people will be the ones living with the consequences if a NO vote for a long time to come

its not the governments job to educate the people, its up to the people to find out

/

All us poor slobs will suffer the consequences of a No vote all right.

In fairness though the government has done a very poor job, again.

cornbb

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I have to say that the 2 page ad (Libertas had 4 whole pages in the Indo yesterday) will probably sway a lot of people. If the referendum is defeated the government have only themselves to blame by not explaining the treaty properly

It was always going to be difficult to condense the benefits of a complex treaty into soundbites and poster slogans. "Good for jobs" is probably true, but in a removed sort of way. Plus a lot of time and energy on the yes side has been expended on counteracting the lies from the no side. I still do think the government sucks though

humanji

meglome wrote: »

All us poor slobs will suffer the consequences of a No vote all right.

In fairness though the government has done a very poor job, again.

At least they're consistent.

finbar10

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Don't have it to hand but here are some from the Libertas website, pretty much the same;

Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade & Foreign Direct Investment

It would give more power to EU in this area. FDI is brought under the common commercial policy. It would allow the EU is negotiate international treaties including FDI and other commerical policy, which would be decided upon by QMV (unless issues involving unanimity are involved). So in theory the EU could sign up to an international treaty involving FDI where Ireland was outvoted in QMV. There is the caveat though:

The exercise of the competences conferred by this Article in the field of the
common commercial policy shall not affect the delimitation of competences between
the Union and the Member States, and shall not lead to harmonisation of legislative or
regulatory provisions of the Member States insofar as the Treaties exclude such
harmonisation.

So it's fair to say EU power in this area is increased. But there are certainly restrictions on this.

Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling that of Germany

Yes, in the population component of the vote.
But the country component of the vote does increase somewhat in our favour.

Under Nice QMV: 50% of countries (14/27) needed.
Under Lisbon QMV: 55% of countries (15/27) needed.

Other rules: 62% optional populational requirement under Nice and 4 country minimum rule for a blocking minority under Lisbon can be ignored in comparison as they are largely already inherent in both systems.

Creates an unelected President & a Foreign Minister of Europe

The powers of these are still limited (one also has to distinguish between presidents of council and commission also). I guess their powers may increase in later treaties (but we're talking about Lisbon here).

Hands over power in 60 areas of policy to Brussels - on everything from transport to employment and some aspects of foreign policy

Yes, the exact number depends on how they are counted.

Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law

No really a new thing. The wording of the constitutional amendment on this issue isn't essentially different (except for addition of a new political statement in the amendment "Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union ...").

The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

There is certainly a new "simplified revision procedure". This is somewhat limited in scope. It can only be used to modify part 3 of the TFEU which covers "internal policies and actions of the Union". There must be unanimous agreement of the governments also.

It would also have to conform to countries' constitutional requirements. What requirements there are in Ireland's case were set out in the 1980s in a case taken by Raymond Crotty. These requirements are probably a good deal weaker than many people might expect. In a narrow 3-2 supreme court victory Crotty won only on a single of his points of objection (that of foreign policy). The supreme court didn't have a problem with the transfer of sovereignty to the EU as such. It acknowledged the European Communities as "dynamic and developing entities" with "an inbuilt and clearly expressed objective of expansion and progress". The deciding factor whether a transfer of sovereignty was constitutional or not basically seems to be whether it meets "the essential nature of the scope and objectives of the Communities as they must be deemed to have been envisaged by the people", i.e. whether it can be reasonably envisaged or is a natural development from existing constitutionally ratified treaties. It felt that the referendum on joining the community hadn't given sufficient provision on foreign policy. That was why Crotty won on this.

Would inclusion of the "simplified revision procedure" in Lisbon allow the EU to make broad changes to "EU internal policy" without need for a referendum in Ireland? Does the article give the the Irish government implicit permission to act in this regard? Could this be reasonably envisaged here? Am not sure. Probably not. But it's perhaps something that could be argued.

On the more broader question of the need for referendums on EU treaties,
we are now 4 or 5 referenda on from Crotty. The EU's scope has gradually increased. At this stage there's probably much that could be included in a European Treaty that wouldn't need a referendum. There are still probably a few things that would need one. We've had a tradition of referendums on EU treaties. It's been so long since Crotty that it's rather unclear as to how the supreme court might rule. Some people questioned whether even Lisbon really would have needed a referendum. The Attorney General thought that it would. Would have been interesting to seen his actual opinion. Others disagreed at the time. But it's rather unclear how a 3-2 decision more than 20 years ago would translate to a similar case taken in today's supreme court.

Diminishes Ireland's power to nominate our European Commissioner - Changes from 'nominate' to 'suggest'

Maybe. Why was the wording changed at all if it makes no difference? 'Suggest' certainly is a weaker word than 'nominate'. But would it make any practical difference? Don't really know.

Kidchameleon

Seriously - that is just total nonsense. If the YES side are such good liars...




HA! Biff, Kenny, Lenno are all yes people and their not liars, no not at all :-)

Stabshauptmann

cornbb wrote: »

A lot of stuff posted by the No side looks convincing at first glance but I guarantee you that it is all demolished after just a little digging.

But you see thats the problem. I voted yes the last time, and planned to do so this time around. But a good few times over the last 2 weeks Ive come across something thats worried me and its only by coming on here that its been explained to me properly.

That is to say, I couldnt find the accurate or intelligent rebuttal on the referedum commission website or yes campaign litriture.

I think that a lot of people wouldnt have the effort to find the truth out, or would be unable to find the truth, and Im pesimistic about todays result

Scofflaw

finbar10 wrote: »

Maybe. Why was the wording changed at all if it makes no difference? 'Suggest' certainly is a weaker word than 'nominate'. But would it make any practical difference? Don't really know.

It's been changed to reflect the reality - nothing has changed in the process, but the idea that member states "nominate" Commissioners isn't true in Nice - they're subject to approval by the Council and by the European Parliament - hence the change of wording.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tarobot

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Seriously - that is just total nonsense. If the YES side are such good liars...




HA! Biff, Kenny, Lenno are all yes people and their not liars, no not at all :-)

In the campaign? Where did they lie?

I'm from Generation Yes- where did we lie? Go on.

cornbb

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

But you see thats the problem. I voted yes the last time, and planned to do so this time around. But a good few times over the last 2 weeks Ive come across something thats worried me and its only by coming on here that its been explained to me properly.

That is to say, I couldnt find the accurate or intelligent rebuttal on the referedum commission website or yes campaign litriture.

I think that a lot of people wouldnt have the effort to find the truth out, or would be unable to find the truth, and Im pesimistic about todays result

I agree. If the result is No after today then it will be because a large number of people had some niggling feeling that this treaty was bad for us. And that feeling would be grounded in the messages coming from lampposts, not in reality.

sceptre

Tarobot wrote: »

In the campaign? Where did they lie?

I'm from Generation Yes- where did we lie? Go on.

You know that every time I hear the phrase "Generation Yes", the Generation Sex song by the Divine Comedy floats through my head... every single time. Of course I don't listen to lyrics, which is probably just as well:)

edit: what the hell, seeing as we're striking the sets and allowing the forum to go back to normal EU things, let's have the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfTnCN9d00

Every single time...

For what it's worth, the guy Gen Yes had going around the country (at least at the Limerick session) explaining the legalities of the Treaty knew his stuff, was modest enough to admit that he didn't necessarily know everything (though I took notes at the sparsely-attended Limerick session which I attended [1] and he didn't trip up anywhere) and was open to discussion.


[1] Like other pro and anti-Lisbon talks in Limerick before the wags start tonguing. Or vice versa.

I tried to have a chat with the Cóir people but their loudspeaker car was driving too fast.

finbar10

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been changed to reflect the reality - nothing has changed in the process, but the idea that member states "nominate" Commissioners isn't true in Nice - they're subject to approval by the Council and by the European Parliament - hence the change of wording.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I went off and checked the wording of the procedure for appointing the commission in both Nice and Lisbon. I agree that in both cases the commission must be approved by both council and parliament. And the there has to be a national on each member state on it (or allocated rotationally equally if the commission is smaller). Only a qualified majority is required in the council.

In Lisbon:
From TEU 214(2)

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons
whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the
basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3,
second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

(the subparagraphs refer to requirements of competence and independence and that the commissioners be equally allocated according to nationality).

And from the same article in Nice:

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President,
shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the
Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

I guess this rather semantic argument comes down to whether

shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the
Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

is in effect stronger than

They shall be selected, on the
basis of the suggestions made by Member States

It comes down to whether "in accordance with the proposals made by" is stronger than "on the basis of suggestions made by"?

I would feel that "in accord with" would require that the commission would definitely have to conform to individual country nominations (perhaps after some horsetrading). A commission list couldn't be put to QMV by the council unless this is satisfied.

"On the basis of the suggestions made by Member States" would in my opinion be somewhat weaker. "proposal" sounds stronger than "suggestion" to me. Same for "in accordance with" as opposed to "on the basis of".

In Lisbon the list must conform to the suggestions made by the "Member States". In Nice it must be in accordance with proposals made by "each Member State".

There's perhaps some wiggle room here. Maybe with the new wording a QMV voting could in theory push through a commission list, which of course would have to have an Irish national, but the Irish national on it might not be same as the Irish "suggestion"? It could perhaps be an Irish national suggested by other EU countries who objected to the Irish "suggestion"?

P. Breathnach

sceptre wrote: »

... I tried to have a chat with the Cóir people but their loudspeaker car was driving too fast.

Given how cross you get about what you perceive to be nonsense, perhaps that was a good thing for all concerned.

ixtlan

finbar10 wrote: »

There's perhaps some wiggle room here. Maybe with the new wording a QMV voting could in theory push through a commission list, which of course would have to have an Irish national, but the Irish national on it might not be same as the Irish "suggestion"? It could perhaps be an Irish national suggested by other EU countries who objected to the Irish "suggestion"?

Thanks for the research! Interesting. I have enough confidence in the EU to believe that it means that each state will pick their commissioner, and at worst they may have to find another that would be acceptable.

Certainly though the phrase is open to some interpretation. It would be interesting to see the treaty translations in other languages to see it the phrase might be clearer.

Edit: One might even argue that the Irish commisioner need not be Irish... Why should the Irish government not nominate for example Declan Ganley. I don't think it specifies an Irish citizen. So I think realistically one should assume the Irish will get to suggest their own candidate.

Ix.

Max Power1

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Don't have it to hand but here are some from the Libertas website, pretty much the same;

Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade & Foreign Direct Investment

Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling that of Germany

Creates an unelected President & a Foreign Minister of Europe

Hands over power in 60 areas of policy to Brussels - on everything from transport to employment and some aspects of foreign policy

Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law

The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

Diminishes Ireland's power to nominate our European Commissioner - Changes from 'nominate' to 'suggest'

Cheers

Thats funny. EU law is already superior to Irish law.

finbar10

ixtlan wrote: »

Thanks for the research! Interesting. I have enough confidence in the EU to believe that it means that each state will pick their commissioner, and at worst they may have to find another that would be acceptable.

Certainly though the phrase is open to some interpretation. It would be interesting to see the treaty translations in other languages to see it the phrase might be clearer.

Edit: One might even argue that the Irish commisioner need not be Irish... Why should the Irish government not nominate for example Declan Ganley. I don't think it specifies an Irish citizen. So I think realistically one should assume the Irish will get to suggest their own candidate.

Ix.

It'll likely work the same way in practice. But the wording in Lisbon does seem somewhat weaker to me, less watertight, than the wording in Nice.

Tarobot

Max Power1 wrote: »

Thats funny. EU law is already superior to Irish law.

Incorrect through omission. The ECJ rules on EU law and national law that has its origins in EU law. It has no say over Irish law.

Think of it like 27 teams signing up for a football tournament. No point in every team having their own referee on the pitch at the same time. There wouldn't be any point playing and it would descend into chaos.

Oh and no one is forcing us to play, but we realise that by playing with the other teams we're better off!

Edit: while we're on the football analogies, the Lisbon Treaty has 200-odd pages and the FAI rule book has over 600. Yet the Lisbon Treaty is 'totally unreadable and too long' but everyone seems to understand the rules of football.

LookingFor

I was hoping this thread would be about a rumoured ad Libertas was preparing for this Sunday's Independent in which they'd apologise and announce that they're disbanding after Friday's yes vote

Tarobot wrote: »

That's funny - you haven't been able to do it once yet.


Seriously - that is just total nonsense. If the YES side are such good liars, why did someone take it upon themselves to make up a NO poster generator:

http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~theorie/nogenerator/

Wow, just seeing that green-eyed, red-haired girl ad background again - did she have a tear under her right eye in the original too? :eek:

marco_polo

finbar10 wrote: »

It'll likely work the same way in practice. But the wording in Lisbon does seem somewhat weaker to me, less watertight, than the wording in Nice.

I presume the changed wording has something to do with the fact that the commission was originally supposed to have been reduced in size after Lisbon to two thirds?

smokingman

LookingFor wrote: »

Wow, just seeing that green-eyed, red-haired girl ad background again - did she have a tear under her right eye in the original too? :eek:

Have to admit, I think libertas is actually beginning to get cocky putting that poster up.

"Hmmm, we don't have any actual facts to support ourselves (us having no policies to begin with), let's put a crying little one that looks like that Maddie girl up with some slogan, sure the Irish will buy any ole lie just like last time"

:rolleyes:

cornbb

LookingFor wrote: »

Wow, just seeing that green-eyed, red-haired girl ad background again - did she have a tear under her right eye in the original too? :eek:

She is so goddamned creepy. She looks demonic or something. Someone went way overboard with the photoshoppage. And the background looks like the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust.

Max Power1

Tarobot wrote: »

Incorrect through omission. The ECJ rules on EU law and national law that has its origins in EU law. It has no say over Irish law.

Think of it like 27 teams signing up for a football tournament. No point in every team having their own referee on the pitch at the same time. There wouldn't be any point playing and it would descend into chaos.

Oh and no one is forcing us to play, but we realise that by playing with the other teams we're better off!

Edit: while we're on the football analogies, the Lisbon Treaty has 200-odd pages and the FAI rule book has over 600. Yet the Lisbon Treaty is 'totally unreadable and too long' but everyone seems to understand the rules of football.

Perhaps you should actually read the irish constitution then? Article 29 to be precise
EU law is superior to Irish law. If there is a conflict between the 2, EU law supercedes Irish law

Tarobot

Max Power1 wrote: »

Perhaps you should actually read the irish constitution then? Article 29 to be precise
EU law is superior to Irish law. If there is a conflict between the 2, EU law supercedes Irish law

Yes, but only when the Irish law originates in EU law!

Are you suggesting that ALL Irish law is superseded by EU law?

ei.sdraob

Max Power1 wrote: »

Perhaps you should actually read the irish constitution then? Article 29 to be precise
EU law is superior to Irish law. If there is a conflict between the 2, EU law supercedes Irish law

since 1973 .....

Max Power1

Tarobot wrote: »

Yes, but only when the Irish law originates in EU law!

Are you suggesting that ALL Irish law is superseded by EU law?

when there is a conflict between the 2, yes

Max Power1

ei.sdraob wrote: »

since 1973 .....

thats my point!!!!!

Tarobot

Max Power1 wrote: »

when there is a conflict between the 2, yes

But that is just incorrect! Why are you lying, or is this what you actually believe and you don't think you're lying?

LookingFor

smokingman wrote: »

Have to admit, I think libertas is actually beginning to get cocky putting that poster up.

"Hmmm, we don't have any actual facts to support ourselves (us having no policies to begin with), let's put a crying little one that looks like that Maddie girl up with some slogan, sure the Irish will buy any ole lie just like last time"

:rolleyes:

So wait, she had the tear in the original too?

lol, that's facking shameless! That would take the top-spot for me from another flyer ad we got in the door from some no group with a "take a closer look at lisbon" tagline, under a picture of a not unattractive looking girl. This campaign has been so full of awful, awful marketing cliches, like stuff out of the simpsons.

Max Power1

Tarobot wrote: »

But that is just incorrect! Why are you lying, or is this what you actually believe and you don't think you're lying?

did you read article 29 of the constitution of Ireland?
Heres the link http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

sceptre

Tarobot wrote: »

But that is just incorrect! Why are you lying, or is this what you actually believe and you don't think you're lying?

If he actually believes it to be true, then by definition he can't be lying.

Tarobot

sceptre wrote: »

If he actually believes it to be true, then by definition he can't be lying.

That's why I said is he lying or is it just that he believes it to be true...!

MaxPower1, you are wrong.

Max Power1

Tarobot wrote: »

That's why I said is he lying or is it just that he believes it to be true...!

MaxPower1, you are wrong.

I would implore you to read the constitution before continuing this

finbar10

marco_polo wrote: »

I presume the changed wording has something to do with the fact that the commission was originally supposed to have been reduced in size after Lisbon to two thirds?

That's a good point. Possibly a reason for this. But the Nice treaty does allow for a reduction in the number of commissioners. But admittedly that was because of a later amendment to that effect in the Bulgaria/Romania accession treaty. The original wording wouldn't have envisaged a reduction. But in Lisbon the wording is still the wording regardless of original reasons for it.