Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

BlitzKrieg · 19-08-2009 04:15AM

Would an international agreement not enshrined in a UN Security Council be treated with as much respect as the ECJ showed to the UN Resolution? Given that the ECJ was equivocal about the former, that should concern us. I'm not comfortable with the ECJ presuming to review UN resolutions or international agreements. It impinges on the sovereignty of member atates, and constitutes another example of "competence-creep" on the ECJ's part for which the court has become notorious.

Firstly I must admit I am rather chuffed that you confuse me with Scafflow.

On the issue at hand, lets put together a little dateline, going by the press release

Step 1, The UN security council has created a resolution (that updates, the people in question were not originally on the list but added to it.) that requires all UN member states to freeze the funds of the people or groups on the list.

Step 2, The EU creates a regulation to enforce the UN's resolution, this regulation is updated whenever the resolution is.

Step 3, This EU regulation is contested by Mr Kadi and co and the complaint is first shot down and then when brought to the court of justice it is of 2 parts.

First it is recognised that the UN's resolution and the regulation enforcing it are correct

First, the Court confirms that the Council was competent to adopt the regulation on the basis of the articles of the EC Treaty that it chose3. The Court finds that, even if the Court of First Instance made certain errors in its reasoning, its final conclusion that the Council was competent to adopt that regulation was not incorrect.

So to be 100% here, at this point the ECJ has ruled that the original resolution is not in the wrong in any way and the EU abiding by that original resolution by creating a regulation to enforce it..COMPLETELY LEGAL AND HAS ITS FULL SUPPORT! There is no attack on the UN's ruling.

BUT

The Court considers, however, that the regulation in question was adopted without furnishing any guarantee enabling Mr Kadi to put his case to the competent authorities. Such a gurantee was, however, necessary in order to ensure respect for his right to property, having regard to the general application and continuation of the freezing measures affecting him.

In plain english the EU regulation that was drawn up in response to the UN resolution lacked the legal tools for the accused to challange or even have it explained to him how he ended up on that list. Thats the EU regulation now, not the UN resolution.

The ECJ annuled the EU regulation with a 3 month timeframe for it to be resubmitted.

The issue was never with the UN resolution it was the EU's response to the resolution that was lacking, they didnt challange the UN's position on anything, in fact they ruled that the UN's position and the intention of the regulation were all justified and well within the EU's competence. Where it failed was the regulations requirement as an EU regulation to uphold EU rights. The UN's resolution had nothing to do with any of that. The sheer fact the ECJ did everything it could to ensure that the original resolution was preserved shows the respect they had for the UN, the issue with EU interpetation of the resolution.

On the current issue, its a different situation, it is not EU law implementing a UN resolution. Its EU law being safegaurded by the UN. Two different situations. With the first scenario, the law can be changed by the EU if it doesnt cross the UN's resolution, which is what happened, there was a flaw on the EU side of things the courts moved to correct it.
The 2nd scenario though is the EU requesting that the UN safegaurd, the EU law, not create the resolution that the EU impliments, but state that word for word those garuantee's cannot change. The ECJ has no ruling there, no room to interpet new rewrites because the wordings themselves are gauranteed, not some interpetation of them.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 19-08-2009 10:24AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Meaning you didn't like the answer the first time. Like the Government. You are made for each other in that respect.

I always answer questions asked of me on this forum pertinant to this Treaty and my reasons for voting no to it. It is not an "either or" scenario. The yes camp like to pigeon-hole no voters as being concerned with wedge issues, and therefore you try to make out what I'm opposed to is the guarantees. .

No what I am stating, is that you aren't actually worried about the guarantees, because you are clever enough to know that they only guarantee what's *not* in the treaty, and so even if they weren't legally binding, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

This is why you can't state which one you are worried about of:
Abortion
Neutrality
Taxation

Because you know that you won't find anything in the treaty to back up a concern you might claim.

You bring Taxation into it by referring to CCCTB, which you already know is not in Lisbon.

However, you are still continually calling into question the validity of the guarantees, in order to fool someone who's not as familiar with the Lisbon treaty, and hopefully make them think that the ECJ will rule that, contrary to the guarantees Lisbon actually will bring in Abortion or an EU Army.

You admitted as much when I backed you into a corner, and you changed tack to talk about your primary concern being the Charter of Rights.

You're no better than every other dastard in Libertas and Coir, lying away, and sowing FUD, and mud, wherever you see clarity, in order gain the result you want.

The ends justify the means eh?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 19-08-2009 10:43AM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

<Snipped an excellent and thorough investigation of the ECJ & UN Resolution>

I would bet you any amount of money he repeats the claim that the ECJ overruled a UN resolution, citing this case, before the vote in October.

He's not interested in the truth...

rumour · 19-08-2009 01:24PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The proposed amendment has been published. You can read it here.

That link is causing my explorer to crash, seriously. Can you try it again?

P. Breathnach · 19-08-2009 01:34PM

rumour wrote: »

That link is causing my explorer to crash, seriously. Can you try it again?

It works fine for my system, both with Firefox and IE.

Macha · 19-08-2009 01:40PM

It's a pdf so try right-clicking and saving the document to your PC

rumour · 19-08-2009 01:57PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Is there any particular reason why you think it is unreasonable to ask somebody to backup a claim that the minority Federalist faction came to completely dominate the writing of the treaty?

Apart from the fact that he couldn't answer.

I think he has provided enough back up to support an opinion for that is all we can go on about here. Just because you do not like his perspective does not invalidate that perspective.
What is beguiling is the fundamentalist support of the wording of the treaty as if it were absolute. Nothing anyone speculates about potential pitfalls could ever possibly occur ever.
Please read the following:

The following is the wording of a printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.
I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

It is pretty hard to deny that the European Union is proceding in an ideological direction towards more unity. What is not clear is if it really has a mandate from the populace of Europe to do so. Furthermore it appears that Ireland will be used to provide this disingenuous legitimacy/mandate.

To proceed in this manner on a project of this scale without a democratic mandate is generally not a good idea unless your intention is to quell subversion by any means possible. For those who are looking for a source to back up this statement go to any university library and look for the History section. Start with classical history and proceed to the modern day.

sink · 19-08-2009 02:02PM

rumour wrote: »

To proceed in this manner on a project of this scale without a democratic mandate is generally not a good idea unless your intention is to quell subversion by any means possible.

You imply that there is subversion that needs to be quelled. Where is it?

P. Breathnach · 19-08-2009 02:06PM

rumour wrote: »

I think he has provided enough back up to support an opinion for that is all we can go on about here. ...

No he hasn't. He has asserted something.

The sky is green. If you challenge what I say, then I can repeat it, and it becomes true.

rumour · 19-08-2009 02:18PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'd say it serves to expose and remove tosh

I would say that this form of analysis with malign intent deliberately excludes free thinking. It is more akin to legalistic training where the sole purpose is to examine and interpret the words. Not to give opinion on them. I believe a remember another maxim of legalistic training, the truth is irrelevant.

However much to the chagrin of a world dominated by lawyers free thinking has not been totally outlawed as there is I believe still a consensus that to do so would be morally wrong.

Curiously the European Constitution and therefore the Lisbon Treaty drafted by Lawyers has removed any mention of religon thus enabling it to if thus inclined dictate rights and wrongs with no superior moral guidance other than the European Constitution. To ignore the moral influence of religon in a world based on competition is a flawed approach.
As ultimately your objective is to beat/eliminate the competition. For more direction here I suggest you go to a legal library and dig out what you can find on the philosophy of law.

rumour · 19-08-2009 02:20PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No he hasn't. He has asserted something.

The sky is green. If you challenge what I say, then I can repeat it, and it becomes true.

Not again. Go to the library and read a little on the geography of the planet. Does that help.

JoeJC · 19-08-2009 02:25PM

The European Union and our government are not respecting us as a people by rehashing the Lisbon Treaty and making us vote on it for a second time. This is plain truth.
The EU and our government are not respecting the fundamental principal of democracy by taking our decision, as a nation, and utterly disregarding it when we were told that our vote would be respected.

The content of the Lisbon Treaty was of the utmost importance for Lisbon 1. Now, in my opinion, the content, no matter how favourable it is for Ireland, is irrelevent. What matters is that by ignoring the outcome of Lisbon 1, the people of this country have been very subtly betrayed; betrayed by our government who want to stay in the EU's good books (understandably) and the top Europhiles, who dont give two fecks about this country.

Every eligible voter, as well as those in the Yes camp have a duty to Ireland, the EU and democracy to vote No on October 2nd.

rumour · 19-08-2009 02:26PM

sink wrote: »

You imply that there is subversion that needs to be quelled. Where is it?

Thats a big leap. I'd say proceeding without a democratic mandate (i.e. you do not have the majority supporting you) leaves you a problem of forcing your views on others. There are of course many ways to do this.

However ultimately it will invlove forcing your will on people even though you are a minority.

Therefore if this is the route we seem to be embarking on what is the plan to deal with people who disagree?

rumour · 19-08-2009 02:31PM

rumour wrote: »

That link is causing my explorer to crash, seriously. Can you try it again?

Bugger still not working, its at oireachtas.ie?

P. Breathnach · 19-08-2009 02:33PM

rumour wrote: »

Not again. Go to the library and read a little on the geography of the planet. Does that help.

I am actually sitting in a room lined with books, including a couple of shelves dealing with geography and related matters. The sky is still green.

rumour · 19-08-2009 02:41PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am actually sitting in a room lined with books, including a couple of shelves dealing with geography and related matters. The sky is still green.

I have provided some references for you to check which I think are increasingly relevant, they may not be in your room.

and for further reading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Irrelevant

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 03:01PM

rumour wrote: »

It is pretty hard to deny that the European Union is proceeding in an ideological direction towards more unity.

Well, yeah, that's what "ever closer union" implies.

I'm not sure what the problem is with unity. When did concepts like co-operation, consensus, dialogue, synergy and so on develop negative connotations?

We've seen what happens when the nation-states of Europe decide to work against each other's interests. Give me ever closer union any day.

JoeJC wrote: »

The European Union and our government are not respecting us as a people by rehashing the Lisbon Treaty and making us vote on it for a second time.

Nobody's making you vote on anything, least of all the EU.

The EU and our government are not respecting the fundamental principal of democracy by taking our decision, as a nation, and utterly disregarding it when we were told that our vote would be respected.

Our vote was respected. We haven't ratified Lisbon. The government still wants to ratify Lisbon, so it's asking our permission for a second time.

The fascist bastards.

...in my opinion, the content, no matter how favourable it is for Ireland, is irrelevent.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The content is by far the most relevant consideration.

rumour wrote: »

Thats a big leap. I'd say proceeding without a democratic mandate (i.e. you do not have the majority supporting you) leaves you a problem of forcing your views on others. There are of course many ways to do this.

However ultimately it will invlove forcing your will on people even though you are a minority.

Therefore if this is the route we seem to be embarking on what is the plan to deal with people who disagree?

Your question is based on a premise that you haven't supported. I disagree that this the route we're embarking on; therefore the question is moot.

Scofflaw · 19-08-2009 03:06PM

rumour wrote: »

I would say that this form of analysis with malign intent deliberately excludes free thinking. It is more akin to legalistic training where the sole purpose is to examine and interpret the words. Not to give opinion on them. I believe a remember another maxim of legalistic training, the truth is irrelevant.

However much to the chagrin of a world dominated by lawyers free thinking has not been totally outlawed as there is I believe still a consensus that to do so would be morally wrong.

Curiously the European Constitution and therefore the Lisbon Treaty drafted by Lawyers has removed any mention of religon thus enabling it to if thus inclined dictate rights and wrongs with no superior moral guidance other than the European Constitution. To ignore the moral influence of religon in a world based on competition is a flawed approach.

Curiously, you are entirely incorrect! The current Treaties contain no reference to God or even to churches - their only mention is in respect of the prohibition on religious discrimination.

In fact, it's Lisbon that introduces "respect for churches":

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.
2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.
3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI · 19-08-2009 03:16PM

Rumour,

You are asking that we accept claims about things that may or may not have happened, on face value, without seeking supporting evidence. Or at the very least to go and research ourselves to find out if they are true or not.

This is shifting the burden of proof from the claimant to the audience, it makes it impossible to conduct any sort of meaningful conversation.

Accept that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, as it always has done, and always will do.

If someone tells me something and I am pretty sure they are lying, then I can ask that they prove what they are telling me, especially when that thing they are saying should be readily backed up by proof.

If the proof is provided, I will accept that the person is telling the truth, and they will have done us all a favour.

If someone either refuses to provide proof, or shifts the burden of proof onto me I will just assume they are lying.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 19-08-2009 03:33PM

rumour wrote: »

To ignore the moral influence of religon in a world based on competition is a flawed approach.

To ignore the moral influence of religion is indeed a flawed approach, we should set out to resist, as much as possible, the moral influence of religion.

rumour · 19-08-2009 05:57PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Curiously, you are entirely incorrect! The current Treaties contain no reference to God or even to churches - their only mention is in respect of the prohibition on religious discrimination.

In fact, it's Lisbon that introduces "respect for churches":

cordially,
Scofflaw

Again it is the abstract notion of God that is called into question, for all religons now do, as you have supported is make a valuable contribution. The value of that contribution is judged now by I guess the new institution created by this treaty.
I am somewhat familiar with the negotiations and intentions that went into the drafting of the words you have quoted, there was a deliberate campaign to avoid religion having any input into the morality or otherwise of what the EU may in future percieve as a necessary law. I understand at the time the catholic church was heavily involved and have walked away happy with the outcome. Does that validate it?I am thinking of Chamberlain again? Curiously the Pope is on record as saying something to the effect that europe is lost. I'm not sure if he means just to the Catholic chruch.

This is the first treaty applied to the whole of Europe that has relegated the common moral set of values from the Christan faith to a mere contribution since before Constantine. Prior to that the emperors believed they were the Gods. Its not very hard to create that position when a persons right to believe in a God can be subverted by law. Your quotes will no doubt be used some day to do the exact opposite of what you claim now to be their purpose. Is this the europe we are invisaging?The other example is of course the former USSR but I would concede it is not entirely analogous..

Codially I thank you for the specific references that serve to illustrate that wording can be ambigious and of little value without knowledge of intent.

rumour · 19-08-2009 05:58PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To ignore the moral influence of religion is indeed a flawed approach, we should set out to resist, as much as possible, the moral influence of religion.

Good luck

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 06:09PM

rumour wrote: »

This is the first treaty applied to the whole of Europe that has relegated the common moral set of values from the Christan faith to a mere contribution since before Constantine.

Can you point out the specific provisions in the EU treaties to date that place the Christian faith at a higher level than Lisbon does?

Unless, of course, the "no" campaign dictionary has a different meaning of "relegate" to that in common use.

Its not very hard to create that position when a persons right to believe in a God can be subverted by law.

By what law can that right be subverted?

Codially I thank you for the specific references that serve to illustrate that wording can be ambigious and of little value without knowledge of intent.

The specific references provided by Scofflaw are clear and unambiguous.

I'm getting really tired of the making-stuff-up approach that the "no" campaign seems to be falling back on - particularly the sort of tiresome, wordy stuff that we're seeing a lot of here lately.

rumour · 19-08-2009 06:19PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Rumour,

You are asking that we accept claims about things that may or may not have happened, on face value, without seeking supporting evidence. Or at the very least to go and research ourselves to find out if they are true or not.

This is shifting the burden of proof from the claimant to the audience, it makes it impossible to conduct any sort of meaningful conversation.

Accept that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, as it always has done, and always will do.

If someone tells me something and I am pretty sure they are lying, then I can ask that they prove what they are telling me, especially when that thing they are saying should be readily backed up by proof.

If the proof is provided, I will accept that the person is telling the truth, and they will have done us all a favour.

If someone either refuses to provide proof, or shifts the burden of proof onto me I will just assume they are lying.

Some years ago a few Ecomonists stated that we in Ireland were doing things wrong. Vested interests were quick to respond and redicule anyone who threatened their opinion. For every report that was cited another one can be produced. Do I agree with this? No, but it is the way the world works. Those that listened to the 'experts' from government, unions, banks etc have suffered and it is not pretty. However all the information was there and only a minor bit of analysis could put it together. Waiting for someone else to do it for you can be a costly affair.
We do not have much of a say in what is past but we can in small ways influence the future whether anyone listens or not, I'm not sure how much control anyone can have over that.
This is a thread on a board on the internet, I am not going to dig out thirty years of reading to verify picky points. If this is the only means of education or becoming informed these days then maybe I'm not so surprised the country is going down the toilet.
I would advise that you give some consideration to your method of determining the truth, it will not always be handed on a plate to you as per your demands.

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 06:25PM

rumour wrote: »

I would advise that you give some consideration to your method of determining the truth, it will not always be handed on a plate to you as per your demands.

That whole post is a pretty long-winded way of saying "no, I won't back up my claims."

On this forum, credibility isn't a function of verbosity. If you want your arguments to have weight, back them up.

rumour · 19-08-2009 06:34PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point out the specific provisions in the EU treaties to date that place the Christian faith at a higher level than Lisbon does?

Unless, of course, the "no" campaign dictionary has a different meaning of "relegate" to that in common use. By what law can that right be subverted? The specific references provided by Scofflaw are clear and unambiguous.

I'm getting really tired of the making-stuff-up approach that the "no" campaign seems to be falling back on - particularly the sort of tiresome, wordy stuff that we're seeing a lot of here lately.

You believe I am making stuff up? Why am I voting on a treaty for the second time when Europe is supposed to under current law accept our decision. Clearly the provisions of whatever treaty that was are being ignored.
When you cite parts of the treaty with your interpretation (thank you) and state them as facts you will forgive me but I do not know if what you say will actually transpire. The evidence is right before me, we had a referendum and the result has been ignored. Therefore I will examine as many concievable outcomes as I can. As yet I do not get answers only the text of the treaty but as I have siad based on evidence this cannot really be trusted.
To understand the concept I am talking about you will have to study the philosophy of law particuarly in relation to the capitalist society and then gain some understanding of the mechanisms of state (executive,legislature & judicary). These functions are compatible with one cavaet common moral values. If any of the three disgaree the state struggles. I do not have references at hand and you may as others have done choose to determine this as lying, your loss.

This treaty being largely the constitution that was rejected in France and the Netherlands sought deliberately to classsify and limit the moral authority of the christian church. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but when you create a vacuum something must fill it. What will that be?

rumour · 19-08-2009 06:51PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That whole post is a pretty long-winded way of saying "no, I won't back up my claims."

On this forum, credibility isn't a function of verbosity. If you want your arguments to have weight, back them up.

You have probably hit the nail on the head. I am not seeking to argue but looking for answers or to learn. If I transgress I apologise, the sum total of what I have learned from this thread is that the majority of the 'yes' campaigners are as smugly incompetent as the last time.
There are many good ideological reasons to vote yes but they are mine. I have often been told 'in dicipline comes freedom', by that I mean I have the freedom to choose yes or no, but once I choose yes I have totally lost that freedom. This is an amazing example of that principle in action.

The proponents of the treaty are scared to engage in the fundamental reasons why we need to vote yes. Just read 'the prince' I think it identifies every pragmatic reason why Ireland needs to vote yes. They refuse to engage in the ideological purpose of the whole project Europe, fundamentally no one has the ability to communicate the positives of this constitution and measure them against the negative aspects. And as you have said it is all arguments not debate. Sadly I am obviously communicating with the wrong people and wasting my time.

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 07:03PM

rumour wrote: »

You believe I am making stuff up? Why am I voting on a treaty for the second time when Europe is supposed to under current law accept our decision. Clearly the provisions of whatever treaty that was are being ignored.
When you cite parts of the treaty with your interpretation (thank you) and state them as facts you will forgive me but I do not know if what you say will actually transpire. The evidence is right before me, we had a referendum and the result has been ignored. Therefore I will examine as many concievable outcomes as I can. As yet I do not get answers only the text of the treaty but as I have siad based on evidence this cannot really be trusted.
To understand the concept I am talking about you will have to study the philosophy of law particuarly in relation to the capitalist society and then gain some understanding of the mechanisms of state (executive,legislature & judicary). These functions are compatible with one cavaet common moral values. If any of the three disgaree the state struggles. I do not have references at hand and you may as others have done choose to determine this as lying, your loss.

This treaty being largely the constitution that was rejected in France and the Netherlands sought deliberately to classsify and limit the moral authority of the christian church. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but when you create a vacuum something must fill it. What will that be?

rumour wrote: »

You have probably hit the nail on the head. I am not seeking to argue but looking for answers or to learn. If I transgress I apologise, the sum total of what I have learned from this thread is that the majority of the 'yes' campaigners are as smugly incompetent as the last time.
There are many good ideological reasons to vote yes but they are mine. I have often been told 'in dicipline comes freedom', by that I mean I have the freedom to choose yes or no, but once I choose yes I have totally lost that freedom. This is an amazing example of that principle in action.

The proponents of the treaty are scared to engage in the fundamental reasons why we need to vote yes. Just read 'the prince' I think it identifies every pragmatic reason why Ireland needs to vote yes. They refuse to engage in the ideological purpose of the whole project Europe, fundamentally no one has the ability to communicate the positives of this constitution and measure them against the negative aspects. And as you have said it is all arguments not debate. Sadly I am obviously communicating with the wrong people and wasting my time.

Not one answer to my direct questions. This isn't a Dáil-style "debating" chamber where the opposing sides compete in trying to put each other to sleep with long-winded speeches. It's a discussion group, which means that, when you're challenged with direct questions, you're expected to answer them.

Here's a direct question for you: you said above, "Why am I voting on a treaty for the second time when Europe is supposed to under current law accept our decision. Clearly the provisions of whatever treaty that was are being ignored." What provision, contained in which treaty, requires anything of the sort? Straight answer, please, and less of the obfuscatory waffle.

FutureTaoiseach · 19-08-2009 07:07PM

OscarBravo wrote:

Well, yeah, that's what "ever closer union" implies.

I'm not sure what the problem is with unity. When did concepts like co-operation, consensus, dialogue, synergy and so on develop negative connotations?

We've seen what happens when the nation-states of Europe decide to work against each other's interests. Give me ever closer union any day.

That post reflects the ideology behind Lisbon that I have observed from some years in this debate. Namely, an ideological opposition to the concept of the nation state. At least such proponents are honest in where Lisbon is taking us. The Government is too scared to come out and admit that Lisbon is about undermining the nation state in favour of some artificial 'European' identity. Was this what 1916 was for? I think not.

rumour · 19-08-2009 07:13PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not one answer to my direct questions. This isn't a Dáil-style "debating" chamber where the opposing sides compete in trying to put each other to sleep with long-winded speeches. It's a discussion group, which means that, when you're challenged with direct questions, you're expected to answer them.

Here's a direct question for you: you said above, "Why am I voting on a treaty for the second time when Europe is supposed to under current law accept our decision. Clearly the provisions of whatever treaty that was are being ignored." What provision, contained in which treaty, requires anything of the sort? Straight answer, please, and less of the obfuscatory waffle.

I haven't the time nor inclination to indulge your demands. The motivation has gone.

Surely even you will concede saving us both time that I am not incorrect in saying that the Lisbon Treaty should have been abondoned once we voted no.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments