nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I am reading the lisbon treaty!

TheInquisitor

Yes its true, all 306 pages. Here i shall post the random inserts that seem a bit dodgy,

To start page 25/306

The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall
cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including
the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common
defence.

34/306

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common
foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity
drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the
Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in
accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these
tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.’;

That is very vague and broad no???

to be continued

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ei.sdraob

TheInquisitor wrote: »

That is very vague and broad no???

....peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in
accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter...

^ aint that exactly what Irish forces already do in Chad and etc

TheInquisitor

39/306

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the
Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in
proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

So our veto will be gone?

52/306

This is actually a pretty good idea

the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of
which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and
consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of
that State;

BlitzKrieg

no, it would mean that the heads of state would be required to meet and discuss an alternative.

Think of it as the same manner as how the current lisbon issue has gone. If 1 state has failed to ratify a treaty, the heads of state will meet to discuss why, what can be adjusted to help it be ratified.

With the current situation it resulted in the gaurantee's (regeardless of people's opinion on them.) It does not suddenly allow the council to pass the amendment.

Essentially it just means that the heads of state have to talk and propose some sort of plan. It doesnt change the requirements for retification.

marco_polo

TheInquisitor wrote: »

39/306

So our veto will be gone?

52/306

This is actually a pretty good idea

No all that section is saying is that after all states have agreed on the changes to be made and then after two years one or more have still not ratified it, it will be reffered back to the European Council.

I presume this is for cases where a country that has agreed on changes to the treaty and subsequently runs into constitutional or legal difficulties.

marco_polo

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Yes its true, all 306 pages. Here i shall post the random inserts that seem a bit dodgy,

To start page 25/306

34/306

That is very vague and broad no???

to be continued

Do you have the version that shows the deleted text as well the Paragraph that replaces was:

1. The Union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy, the objectives of which shall be:

- to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter,

- to strengthen the security of the Union in all ways,

- to preserve peace and strengthen international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the objectives of the Paris Charter, including those on external borders,

- to promote international cooperation,

- to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The main difference it that Lisbon allows for the possibility of a common defense, but only via unaminity.

TheInquisitor

I cannot find Article 87 part C

Can someone paste this here. The below applies

Article 87 shall be amended as follows:
‘Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council, acting on a
proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision repealing this point.’;

marco_polo

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I cannot find Article 87 part C

Can someone paste this here. The below applies

It is now Article 87 is now Article 107 (Alot of the number got shuffled).
Are you reading the consolodated version or the actual treaty? If the latter you are one tough bastard

Article 107
B]ex Art. 87 EC, amended[/B [1]

1. Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common internal market.

2. The following shall be compatible with the common internal market:

(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned;

(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences;

(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision repealing this point.

3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the common internal market:

(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to in Article 299 [349], in view of their structural, economic and social situation;

(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State;

(c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest;

(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest;

(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.

Rowley Birkin QC

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Yes its true, all 306 pages.

Most apt user name ever?

TheInquisitor

bigkev49 wrote: »

Most apt user name ever?

Its too bad that im giving up. It is impossible to read. The people that wrote it must be the most boring people ever...I made it to page 140 or so and i want to die.

I am going to vote yes to lisbon, but put a tenner bet on no!

BlitzKrieg

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Its too bad that im giving up. It is impossible to read. The people that wrote it must be the most boring people ever.

they were lawyers what do you expect

marco_polo

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Its too bad that im giving up. It is impossible to read. The people that wrote it must be the most boring people ever...I made it to page 140 or so and i want to die.

I am going to vote yes to lisbon, but put a tenner bet on no!

Good effort man, good effort.

MrMicra

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I

I am going to vote yes to lisbon, but put a tenner bet on no!

Me too.

Red Sleeping Beauty

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

ei.sdraob

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

and thats why condensed bullet point versions are available

claiming stupidity and not doing your duty as a citizen is a recipe for disaster in a democracy

then again if the people weren't so selfish and shortsighted we wouldnt have voted FrackingFailure in over and over and be in the position the country is in now

Moromaster

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

Yes, by that logic, every single legal document ever written should not have been put into existence.

The reason it's phrased so oddly (To those unaccustomed to lawyer-lingo) is because it took years to write a very small amount of text.

_ZeeK_

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

legal texts have to be precise. they can't be vague and ambiguous just so that you can understand it more easily.

Moromaster

_ZeeK_ wrote: »

legal texts have to be precise. they can't be vague and ambiguous just so that you can understand it more easily.

Actually, by reading Alan's point, I think I understand where all the no-votes are coming from... lack of understanding.

In the last five minutes, I've seen six posters saying they're going to vote no because they don't understand the legal-gargen.

Lads, just don't vote. :rolleyes:

_ZeeK_

Moromaster wrote: »

Actually, by reading Alan's point, I think I understand where all the no-votes are coming from... lack of understanding.

In the last five minutes, I've seen six posters saying they're going to vote no because they don't understand the legal-gargen.

Lads, just don't vote. :rolleyes:

or how about you read the explanatory literature and commentaries coming from REPUTABLE sources..? see an economist or political commentator you recognise and admire discussing the treaty..? don't turn off the political discussion program/news/current events show. watch it an form an opinion..

i admire the OP for trying to understand the ambit of this text (and for getting as far as he did). it seems that not enough are willing to educate themselves. laziness.

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

What worries me is that you might actually be serious.

Moromaster

_ZeeK_ wrote: »

or how about you read the explanatory literature and commentaries coming from REPUTABLE sources..?

Libertas = reputable?

Hmm, I see.

Torakx

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

last person i saw make a thread saying this got it shut down lol
but i totally agree with you.it was made and given out in a way that most will not understand it at all and simply vote on the merit of our governments word.

they did after all try to slip the majority voting sham right by us.

ei.sdraob

Torakx wrote: »

last person i saw make a thread saying this got it shut down lol
but i totally agree with you.it was made and given out in a way that most will not understand it at all and simply vote on the merit of our governments word.

then read it yourself

did you not get free education and are not able to read? judging by the fact that you are posting here playing dumb is ... dumb

it is sad to see the NO nayers resolt to Bush/US Republican tactics of playing on peoples lack of knowledge and promoting retardation

people had almost a year and a half to make themselves familiar with issue, it is your duty in a citizen to know what you are voting on, claiming ignorance is damn right shortsighted

i dont trust/like the current government but they are nowhere near as bad the clowns on the NO side of the debate

such as:
* SF
* Coir
* Socialist Party

these people are so far on fringes of either far left or far right politics with contradicting world views that its not funny

marco_polo

:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob wrote: »

then read it yourself

did you not get free education and are not able to read? judging by the fact that you are posting here playing dumb is ... dumb

it is sad to see the NO nayers resolt to Bush/US Republican tactics of playing on peoples lack of knowledge and promoting retardation

people had almost a year and a half to make themselves familiar with issue, it is your duty in a citizen to know what you are voting on, claiming ignorance is damn right shortsighted

i dont trust/like the current government but they are nowhere near as bad the clowns on the NO side of the debate

such as:
* SF
* Coir
* Socialist Party

these people are so far on fringes of either far left or far right politics with contradicting world views that its not funny

Just viewing SinnFein No to Nice manifesto interesting reading:

http://www.sinnfein.org/releases/01/nicemanifesto.html

Issues raised include
- undermining our sovereignty
- bring us closer into a European Army
- relegate us to the second division of a two-tier European Union.
- Commissioner Loss
- 30 Areas moving to QMV
- Reduced voting power in the Council

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/17149

Mary Lou speech last month :rolleyes:

- the erosion of Irish Neutrality.
- the weakening of Ireland’s position in Europe
- the loss of the Irish Commissioner
- the erosion of workers’ rights and public services,
- the loss of an automatic right to a referendum on future treaty changes
- advancing the cause of tax harmonisation

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Just viewing SinnFein No to Nice manifesto interesting reading:

http://www.sinnfein.org/releases/01/nicemanifesto.html

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/17149

Mary Lou speech last month :rolleyes:

They's sticking with what they know...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Just viewing SinnFein No to Nice manifesto interesting reading:
:

thats quite interesting so in 7 years since SF claims

- undermining our sovereignty

we still have our sovereignty and never challenged by EU

- bring us closer into a European Army

what EU army?

- relegate us to the second division of a two-tier European Union.

where is this two-tier europe

- Commissioner Loss

we have and get to keep "our" useless fecker

- 30 Areas moving to QMV

and has this hurt Ireland in any way since?

- Reduced voting power in the Council

same as above

none of the rubbish claimed by SF came true

does anyone have the claims made by SF in 1970s before Irleand joined EU as they were opposed to it? or posters?? for the laugh

A Primal Nut

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The unintelligibility of the Treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote no.

This is interesting. Normally, politicans are elected and paid to discuss complicated legislation and vote for it in way that suits the Irish people. For whatever reason, the Irish people demanded that they vote themselves - then they complain when they can't understand. There should never be a referendum and things like this unless it violates our own constitution, the same reason we have referendums on everything else.

The_Minister

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Its too bad that im giving up. It is impossible to read. The people that wrote it must be the most boring people ever...I made it to page 140 or so and i want to die.

I am going to vote yes to lisbon, but put a tenner bet on no!

In fairness, every word of it has to mean the exact same thing in around 30 languages. Exact same thing!

Also, it's amending various treaties piecemeal - it's gonna be difficult

Torakx

ei.sdraob wrote: »

then read it yourself

did you not get free education and are not able to read? judging by the fact that you are posting here playing dumb is ... dumb

it is sad to see the NO nayers resolt to Bush/US Republican tactics of playing on peoples lack of knowledge and promoting retardation

people had almost a year and a half to make themselves familiar with issue, it is your duty in a citizen to know what you are voting on, claiming ignorance is damn right shortsighted

i dont trust/like the current government but they are nowhere near as bad the clowns on the NO side of the debate

such as:
* SF
* Coir
* Socialist Party

these people are so far on fringes of either far left or far right politics with contradicting world views that its not funny

nobody would be so rude and presume i havent read it without having read it themselves i hope.so im presuming your arent stupid.

maybe you didnt understand my post.
all i said was i agreed with the statement in question.
i didnt not mention wether i have read the treaty or not so dont jump the gun too much there.
i educated myself well enough to decide on a no vote thank you very much.

my oppinion is that all of the above parties are no good if they are involved in democratic politics.
so i dont support choir or whoever else there is.i think politics is for actors and liars and to compete with them you must become like them.
i am only voting no on lisbon because i hope it will slow the political process in europe down.

so i do agree you dont need to understand the whole treaty to vote no.
there are many reasons for voting certain ways.
everyone has the right to vote.
the government has the right to educate on what people are voting for.
IF they fail to educate properly then imo a no vote is justified.certainly not a yes! and not voting at all is an option but not obligatory either.

so... i would still say IF you are going to vote and dont understand what your gettign into.vote no until a time when the government do there job right and educate its people properly.

molloyjh

Torakx wrote: »

so... i would still say IF you are going to vote and dont understand what your gettign into.vote no until a time when the government do there job right and educate its people properly.

That is something I find (and I'm sorry for any offence) repugnant. You are basically saying that if you are not informed enough to have an accurate opinion assume the worst and make sure you're assumption is taken into account. It doesn't matter if your assumption is totally wrong and may well be completely at odds with your beliefs, sure you don't know so you may as well pretend like you do in as negative a way as possible.

If you don't know about something then don't get involved in the debate or decision making about it. If I didn't know anything about a new car you were looking to buy I wouldn't tell you not to buy it.

ei.sdraob

Torakx wrote: »

nobody would be so rude and presume i havent read it without having read it themselves i hope.so im presuming your arent stupid.-

im not being rude if you educated yourself then well and good

but the whole "If you dont kNOw, vote NO" campaign from last year is not gonna fly this year

as you said yourself

Torakx wrote: »

"everyone has a right to vote"

but you have no right to tell people not to vote

as you just did here

Torakx wrote: »

i would still say IF you are going to vote and dont understand what your gettign into.vote no until a time when the government do there job right and educate its people properly.

spot the hypocrisy in your own single post! :mad:

and its not governments job to educate people in political matters, blaming government (elected by same people) for own stupidity seems in fashion this season

i will do my damn best to challenge the crazy nonsense coming out of the NO camp, some of it is beyond ridiculous and is insulting

and i will do my best to present facts available (with references, something NO side can learn to do) of how Lisbon is a positive for us and europe, and how NO would damage us and europe

/