Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Options
1…89111314…35

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Galliard wrote: »
    Part of the Lisbon referendum wording continues the current arrangement under which EU laws, decisions, measures, are immune from attack under our Constitution:

    11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts
    done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the
    obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in
    subsection 10    ° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or
    measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions 25
    thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
    section, from having the force of law in the State.

    As more and more areas of law making fall under the scope of the EU, because of this clause they fall outside the protection afforded to people under the Constitution.

    Referendum wording

    Scofflaw scoffs a lot doesn't he?

    If you question him about whether there is any basis in reality to his hint that he has inside knowledge about the Attorney General's thinking on whether we needed a referendum he backs off fast. If you ask him to back up his claim that we can go to the European Court for new fundamental rights, he climbs down fast too.

    He does dismissal quite well, in a way that sometimes sounds convincing. Until you ask him for specifics. You will not be getting many specifics from him on what 'lies' the MEPs and the others in that video are supposed to be telling either, I would guess. He is happy with his sweeping assertion that there is a lie every few seconds. That would make well over 100 in the course of the programme - you'd imagine he'd have no shortage of really good lies to pick from there. Maybe he will grace us now with a list of even say ten sample whoppers from the main speakers?


    You appear to think I have infinite leisure to point these things out. I have pointed out several specific lies, factual errors and propaganda in the first couple of minutes of the video...why should I do more? Perhaps the rate of lying drops off a little later on - but so what?

    You haven't addressed those things I've already pointed out, nor acknowledged any of my points - instead, you've simply shifted your goalposts and tried to generate some new uncertainty about something else. I don't have infinite leisure to deal with that kind of thing, because it becomes quickly clear that you're not interested in debate, but in a chance to push an anti-Lisbon message - which means that I am both wasting my time, and facilitating your agenda, by engaging with you. I'm willing to engage in discussion, but not in chasing a spinning will o'the wisp.

    You (and Amberman) like this video. It agrees with what you feel about the EU...and therefore you're going to be happy with the "what ifs" the video relies on, because they rely on the idea that the EU is a great big conspiracy to do evil. If that makes your life more dramatic, far be it from me to stop you - I already have my hands full with Creationists.

    I don't agree with the central premise of the video - that the EU is evil - so the rest of it just looks like hysteria and student dramatics. There are people in it old enough to know better, but then there always are.

    wearily,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #303
    Galliard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Galliard


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You appear to think I have infinite leisure to point these things out. I have pointed out several specific lies, factual errors and propaganda in the first couple of minutes of the video...why should I do more? Perhaps the rate of lying drops off a little later on - but so what?

    Excellent. I must have skipped that post - could you ever just point me to it?
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You (and Amberman) like this video. It agrees with what you feel about the EU...and therefore you're going to be happy with the "what ifs" the video relies on, because they rely on the idea that the EU is a great big conspiracy to do evil. If that makes your life more dramatic, far be it from me to stop you - I already have my hands full with Creationists.

    You always ignore what other people actually say in your haste to attribute stupid motives to them? My own comment on the video a page back may have passed you by. You'll be surprised when you go back to it to see I criticised the editorialising, which is actually a distraction from the information conveyed by the main interviewees.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't agree with the central premise of the video - that the EU is evil - so the rest of it just looks like hysteria and student dramatics.

    That is understandable. But that does not justify you calling people liars and then failing to back that up. Then again you say you have backed it up so I look forward to being enlightened when I see where you have posted the evidence.


  • Options
    #304
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Galliard wrote: »
    Excellent. I must have skipped that post - could you ever just point me to it?

    Post 276 - page 14.
    Galliard wrote: »
    You always ignore what other people actually say in your haste to attribute stupid motives to them? My own comment on the video a page back may have passed you by. You'll be surprised when you go back to it to see I criticised the editorialising, which is actually a distraction from the information conveyed by the main interviewees.

    That is understandable. But that does not justify you calling people liars and then failing to back that up. Then again you say you have backed it up so I look forward to being enlightened when I see where you have posted the evidence.

    Galliard, if you have some arguments against Lisbon which I haven't already addressed, feel free to post them, but I'm not going to bother responding to personal attacks.I haven't called anyone on this board a liar (although I have called Jens-Peter Bonde one, and wacI), but you are essentially calling me one. If you represent either of those people/groups, and are therefore defending your own honour, you should say so.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #305
    Galliard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Galliard


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Post 276 - page 14.

    I actually had read that post. I am afraid you are on a slippery slope throwing around words like 'lying' when the reality seems to be that it is a case of someone saying something you do not agree with. You may not have the leisure to back up what you say, but some of us take suggestions that someone is lying seriously enough to check them out.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So, then we have Jens-Peter Bonde talking about the length of the treaty, the font, and the number of pages. Then he claims that the reason we're having a referendum is because our courts are too independent. No, we're having a referendum because that's the advice the AG gave the government. Other countries are not, because that's the advice their AG's gave them - not because their courts are somehow suborned, as Bonde implies.

    No claim of lying there, on the face of it it is just a disagreement, which is fair enough - but you do slide over the fact that the AG's advice must have taken account of the Judges' independence under the Constitution and their declaration in a previous case that Irish people are entitled to be asked in a referendum about significant Treaty changes. Now we get to the 'lies' as you call them.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    He then claims that the prime ministers could not have read the treaty, because it is "unreadable". It's exactly the ruddy same as any other piece of amending legislation - full of "blah blah in para 28.2.i replaced by blah blah".

    The text of the treaty is not impossible to read. Bonde is demagoguing, and lying.
    He says why he believes it is unreadable: we need to have a number of books open in front of us and to try to hold them all open and to go from one to the other to try to make sense of what the changes in the Lisbon treaty will mean at the end of the day.
    Scofflaw wrote: »

    In particular, it should be obvious even to the very hard of thinking that if the treaty is 98% the same as the Constitution (as wacI claim), there's hardly very much hidden in it that wasn't in plain sight in the Constitution.

    His claim that the EU will not produce a consolidated text is also not true - or so I am told by the EU Commission people in Dublin (you can walk in and ask - or call and ask). There is an EU consolidated text coming out in April.

    There are two possibilities here at least, one of which is that the EU has changed its mind and decided to produce this in the face of criticism from him and many others on both sides of the debate.

    That is as specific as you get with your allegations of 'lying' on the part of the interviewees on the video. Not impressive really.

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You seem to be having a huge amount of difficulty with the idea that two Irish MEPs and a handful of other MEPs might be not telling the truth about this Treaty, while having none whatsoever with the idea that the all the others are.

    That post of yours (number 300) returns to the theme of not telling the truth and seems to be a snide dig at the likes of the SF MEP McDonald (who is not interviewed on the video at all I think) and Kathy Sinnott MEP, who is. Devoid of specifics again. Do you have any?


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    Galliard, if you have some arguments against Lisbon which I haven't already addressed, feel free to post them, but I'm not going to bother responding to personal attacks.I haven't called anyone on this board a liar (although I have called Jens-Peter Bonde one, and wacI), but you are essentially calling me one. If you represent either of those people/groups, and are therefore defending your own honour, you should say so.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    I represent no one apart from myself. You should ease off on the name calling. It does your case no credit.


  • Options
    #306
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    thought this was hilarious

    it obviously was not possible to understand the Reform Treaty, on which we were to vote, without having a copy of the ‘‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’’.
    http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article16603


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Galliard wrote: »
    I actually had read that post. I am afraid you are on a slippery slope throwing around words like 'lying' when the reality seems to be that it is a case of someone saying something you do not agree with. You may not have the leisure to back up what you say, but some of us take suggestions that someone is lying seriously enough to check them out.

    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    No claim of lying there, on the face of it it is just a disagreement, which is fair enough - but you do slide over the fact that the AG's advice must have taken account of the Judges' independence under the Constitution and their declaration in a previous case that Irish people are entitled to be asked in a referendum about significant Treaty changes. Now we get to the 'lies' as you call them.



    He says why he believes it is unreadable: we need to have a number of books open in front of us and to try to hold them all open and to go from one to the other to try to make sense of what the changes in the Lisbon treaty will mean at the end of the day.




    There are two possibilities here at least, one of which is that the EU has changed its mind and decided to produce this in the face of criticism from him and many others on both sides of the debate.

    That is as specific as you get with your allegations of 'lying' on the part of the interviewees on the video. Not impressive really.



    That post of yours (number 300) returns to the theme of not telling the truth and seems to be a snide dig at the likes of the SF MEP McDonald (who is not interviewed on the video at all I think) and Kathy Sinnott MEP, who is. Devoid of specifics again. Do you have any?


    I represent no one apart from myself. You should ease off on the name calling. It does your case no credit.

    Once again, your post consists of nothing but snide attacks on me, and inaccurate claims about what I've posted.

    I stated, for example, that Jens-Peter Bonde is lying when he states that the heads of state signed a text they 'could not have read because it is impossible to read'. They certainly have read the text, because it's no more difficult to read than any other piece of amending legislation, the production of which is the business of our legislature. You may call that hyperbole, or bad editing, or a disagreement, or whatever other hair you care to split, but what you have not bothered to do is deal with the fact that what he's saying is not true.

    I've asked you if you have any points about the Lisbon treaty I have not already addressed. If you don't, please don't bother addressing your posts to me, because this is not a referendum about me, or about wacI's video. As far as I can see, you've yet to actually make a single substantive point about the Treaty - everything you've said has been question or innuendo.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #308
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    thought this was hilarious

    it obviously was not possible to understand the Reform Treaty, on which we were to vote, without having a copy of the ‘‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’’.
    http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article16603

    Had Vincent Browne bothered to look, he would have found umpteen copies of the TFEU online. Here, for example, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. All EU Treaties are available here.

    Once again, this is not a substantive point about the Treaty, but innuendo. How relevant to the Treaty is the question of what they keep behind the porter's desk in EU House? Not one little bit, but Vincent Browne has chosen to write an article about it as if it was.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #309
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    well it a little ridiculous you can't get a paper copy of it at the EU offices


  • Options
    #310
    PHB
    Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    You know what's made me really happy? Irish people aren't stupid. The No campaign has decided that they are, and made up a bunch of lies about the campaign. They think this worked with the no to nice campaign, but they misunderstood what actually happened (nobody voted)

    Luckily, the way the no campaign is conducting its campaign has ensured this treaty will pass. Thanks!


  • Options
    #311
    Galliard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Galliard


    " The most striking change [between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty] is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties.

    Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform.

    As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
    - Dr Garrett FitzGerald, former Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007

    That, in my opinion, is the truth of the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    ga2re2t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭ga2re2t


    I found this document to be very interesting about Ireland's enactment of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into Irish law:
    http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/publications/relate/november2003.pdf

    What I've been too lazy to look into is a complete comparison of the ECHR and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECFR).

    I believe the Charter is pretty similar to the Convention, but with extra added social stuff? Is this an accurate description?

    Regards.


  • Options
    #313
    jawlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭jawlie


    How anyone can actually vote for a treaty which is incomprehensible is a mystery. Voting "no" is the only sensible course until we have a treaty which is simple to understand. And on which the consequences of voting are simple to understand.

    It is a disgrace that no other country in the EU is to be given a vote on this treaty. Especially when the opinion polls indicate that they want to vote, and that opinion is so polarised.

    Shame on the politicians of Europe who are afraid of democracy.


  • Options
    #314
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    i have one point/question

    give me one advantage of a yes vote ?


  • Options
    #315
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    A more simplified/streamlined EU parliament/treaty. What this means for soverignty etc. I'll leave to others to debate.

    But I'm concerned on other issues and edging to a "No" vote right now.


  • Options
    #316
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    jawlie wrote: »
    How anyone can actually vote for a treaty which is incomprehensible is a mystery. Voting "no" is the only sensible course until we have a treaty which is simple to understand. And on which the consequences of voting are simple to understand.

    If you're baffled by the Treaty itself, I would recommend reading the consolidated version. The IIEA one is approved by the EU until its own version comes out - you can get it from the IIEA pages, or the Irish EU Commission site (that links back to the IIEA text anyway, but there's also a couple of other useful links).

    The consequences of voting being easy to understand...well, again, there's a lot of guides to that, both pro and con. P_ONeill's post (back a couple of pages) is a good guide to Sinn Fein's view of what happens if you vote Yes, and which includes a lot of the standard No arguments. Alternatively, you can look at the Dept of Foreign Affairs guide, or wait for the Referendum Commission to produce its guide.

    Given the sheer amount of material available, it seems silly to keep oneself in the dark, and say we should No because we're in the dark. You won't ever get a really simple treaty, I'm afraid, any more than you get really simple legislation - it's a contract between 27 states, after all, not rules for tiddlywinks.
    jawlie wrote: »
    It is a disgrace that no other country in the EU is to be given a vote on this treaty. Especially when the opinion polls indicate that they want to vote, and that opinion is so polarised.

    Shame on the politicians of Europe who are afraid of democracy.

    Since they all stood for election, and will be doing so again, it seems more than a little ridiculous to say they're "afraid of democracy".

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #317
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    conor2007 wrote: »
    i have one point/question

    give me one advantage of a yes vote ?

    You'll make Bertie happy! And if he's happy, he won't have to ram the treaty down our throats again like he did with the Niece treaty until we gave the "right" answer.


  • Options
    #318
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    i can not see one reason , not one , why anyone would vote yes


  • Options
    #319
    ga2re2t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭ga2re2t


    jawlie wrote: »
    How anyone can actually vote for a treaty which is incomprehensible is a mystery. Voting "no" is the only sensible course until we have a treaty which is simple to understand. And on which the consequences of voting are simple to understand.

    It is a disgrace that no other country in the EU is to be given a vote on this treaty. Especially when the opinion polls indicate that they want to vote, and that opinion is so polarised.

    Shame on the politicians of Europe who are afraid of democracy.

    I somewhat agree, but ...

    I don't believe there is such a thing as a "votable" or "understandable" treaty. And even if one were to exist it would still be interpreted in about 50 different ways because very few members of the public would actually read the whole thing and be able to put it into context with all the other treaties, national constitutions and what not.

    For example, there is a large proportion of people who are thinking about voting "No" because they fear that some of our sovereignty will be lost with the inclusion of the European Charter on Fundamental Rights. However, I doubt many of them have actually read the Charter even though it's very readable and understandable.

    This brings me to another point. I believe that certain documents should be made easily available to each household in Ireland:
    - The Irish Constitution --> sent to every house
    - The European Convention on Human Rights --> sent to every house
    - The Treaty on European Union (known as the Maastricht treaty) --> every local library and school
    - The Treaty establishing the European Community (known as the Treaty of Rome) --> every local library and school
    - The European Charter on Fundamental Rights --> sent to every house

    As a sidenote, there appears to be some confusion out there about what the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union" is. This will be the new name for the Treaty Establishing the European Community.


  • Options
    #320
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    exactly

    scaremongered into voting yes

    just ignore him , if you feel no is the answer - that wont change


  • Options
    #321
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    jawlie wrote: »
    How anyone can actually vote for a treaty which is incomprehensible is a mystery. Voting "no" is the only sensible course until we have a treaty which is simple to understand. And on which the consequences of voting are simple to understand.

    I would disagree, in my opinion the best course of action is:
    • If you read and understand the treaty and any accurate, trustworthy interpretations of the treaty that you can get your hands on then vote according to your opinions.
    • If you don't understand the treaty, don't vote. Assuming that a no vote has more understandable consequences is an unsafe assumption.

    Claiming that the treaty is incomprehensible is not entirely true. So far, the amount of it that I have read has been comprehensible. It's certainly tricky, but it isn't any more difficult to understand than any other law.
    jawlie wrote: »
    It is a disgrace that no other country in the EU is to be given a vote on this treaty. Especially when the opinion polls indicate that they want to vote, and that opinion is so polarised.

    I agree with you on this one. We're extremely lucky here that a referendum is required.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    lucky but with fine fail backing it

    and people backing fine fail - i see a yes coming on

    as stupid as that may be/is


  • Options
    #323
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    conor2007 wrote: »
    i have one point/question

    give me one advantage of a yes vote ?

    Increased role of the EU Parliament, whose members we elect directly - for example the ability for the European Parliament to propose amendments to the EU treaties.

    Citizens Initiative, which means citizens can mobilize on a transnational, Europe-wide base to put political pressure on the EU institutions.

    More streamlined Commission, so a reduction in bureaucracy. The current sharing of responsibilities between several Commissioners means a wasteful duplication of staff and decision-making. While the EU bureaucracy is actually smaller than the Irish civil service, the Commissioners' staffs make up a good chunk of that.

    Single EU voice available on issues like climate change. Not only useful but absolutely necessary, to counter the single US voice.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding on the EU through its directives and institutions, which makes it possible for one person to challenge an EU directive through their national courts.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #324
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    ireland is ireland - why should europe get a say in what we do

    im not against europe

    climate change is good - but the rest of the treaty is anti-democracy


  • Options
    #325
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    conor2007 wrote: »
    lucky but with fianna fail backing it

    and people backing fianna fail - i see a yes coming on

    as stupid as that may be/is

    (... and Fine Gael, and Labour. What percentage of the population voted for those three parties?)

    Certainly, it is extremely stupid to vote for/against something just because your favourite political party (or anyone else for that matter) thinks that way. I urge everyone to make their own mind up.

    Call me a cynic, but I assume that politicians are lying to me. Taking their word that their interpretation of the treaty is the right one seems a little silly at best and dangerous at worst.


  • Options
    #326
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    conor2007 wrote: »
    but the rest of the treaty is anti-democracy

    Which bits are those?


  • Options
    #327
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    im a no vote - you took my post out of context

    but the masses are stupid - they voted back in fine fail

    and they will vote yes - ''cos bertie said so''


  • Options
    #328
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    the unelected law makers

    the 4 countries needed to block any law (needs a certain % of population but easy to get)

    the overruling of bunreacht na heireann

    the ability to extend the powers of the union in the future without a referendum

    the fact that 26 countries were denied a vote

    the fact there is no one document that fully states what this treaty innvolves

    the fact we are being scaremongered into voting yes out of fear of being ''kicked out of europe'' and saying europe created the ''celtic tiger'' and tyo continue it we need europe


  • Options
    #329
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    conor2007 wrote: »
    im a no vote - you took my post out of context

    I'm sorry. Which bit?
    conor2007 wrote: »
    and they will vote yes - ''cos bertie said so''

    And I agree that anyone who does such a thing is an idiot.


  • Options
    #330
    conor2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭conor2007


    anyone who does it for any reason is an idiot
    because there is no reason for a yes vote
    and i plead with you to proove me wrong


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    conor2007 wrote: »
    the fact we are being scaremongered into voting yes out of fear of being ''kicked out of europe'' and saying europe created the ''celtic tiger'' and tyo continue it we need europe

    Exactly. What happened to the original idea of a Trade agreement, called the EEC? That's not good enough, they need to try to take over the world.


Advertisement