Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

auerillo

Stimulant wrote: »

The_Minister wrote: »

I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.
I would be default yes (I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists), but I'm going to give it a good read before I vote.
I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes. Libertas is probably the most trustworthy "No" campaign by a long shot, but I've heard criticisms of some of the things its saying too.



I saw this post on the front page and it shocked me to describe Libertas as a trustworthy source.
I suggest people look at the founder (Declan Ganley) here and other articles:

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

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/fionnan-sheahan/libertas-founder---refuses-to-reveal-list-of-donors-1315058.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

Ganley is currently chairman and CEO of Rivada Networks[1], a US defence contractor specializing in military telecom systems. In the past, he has been involved in business ventures selling Russian aluminium and in the Latvian forestry sector, where he was made a foreign affairs adviser after it gained independence in 1991.[2] Back in Ireland, Ganley had owned the high-profile jewellery website, Adornis.com, which collapsed after the downturn in the technology sector. A 2006 interview in CNBC’s European Business magazine suggested Ganley had a personal worth of €300 million.[2]


This reminds me of american politics and a big stupid media campaign. If you have money you can do what you want and sway opinion to your own means.


Just consider that when considering their opinion along with out ACTUAL politicans who WE have elected.

Why should what a person does for a living have any bearing on his views? Does the fact that Peter Sutherland draws a pension from the EU influence his views to persuade us to vote Yes?

Saruman

auerillo wrote: »

Stimulant wrote: »

Why should what a person does for a living have any bearing on his views? Does the fact that Peter Sutherland draws a pension from the EU influence his views to persuade us to vote Yes?

It matters because he obviously has an agenda and is being influenced by the US military. The US as many have pointed out do not want a more unified Europe, one that is more powerful than themselves.

Russia for instance deals a lot with Europe, they are considered part of Europe in things like the Eurovision etc so its entirely possible that many years from now, they too could join the EU and if that were to happen the US might get a little nervous.

I could be talking crap but its certainly not impossible.

I for one am proud to be Irish but even more proud to be a European and would actually like to see a European superstate in my lifetime.

craichoe

Saruman wrote: »

auerillo wrote: »

It matters because he obviously has an agenda and is being influenced by the US military. The US as many have pointed out do not want a more unified Europe, one that is more powerful than themselves.

Russia for instance deals a lot with Europe, they are considered part of Europe in things like the Eurovision etc so its entirely possible that many years from now, they too could join the EU and if that were to happen the US might get a little nervous.

I could be talking crap but its certainly not impossible.

I for one am proud to be Irish but even more proud to be a European and would actually like to see a European superstate in my lifetime.

Eurovision ..... your nuts .. why would we enter Dustin ... it would make us look weak to the russians !

Saruman

I should start a thread in conspiracy theories and claim the Eurovision was set up as a model for a future EU superstate. Can you imagine if all the Eurovision countries were in the EU? Russia and Israel etc? Fun times

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

Does the fact that Peter Sutherland draws a pension from the EU influence his views to persuade us to vote Yes?

If you can point out a provision of the Lisbon Treaty that has a bearing on his pension, then yes: I'd factor that into my personal deliberations. Until then, it's a non-issue.

Stimulant

The big problem I have with Libertas is that they would not have a voice without a big wad of money.
If Libertas was not present,we would have the yes vote in the balance of about 20% against and 80% for in elected officals.

I might not like or support all these elected officals, but they have been present for years and they can be judged appropiately and there motivations can be seen from past behaviour.

Libertas is not a democratic group, they are not an elected group and therefore do not represent the population of Ireland.

Libertas have already been exposed for taking the treaty out of context.

You bring up Peter Sutherland, he has being involved in politics all his life and has acheived some of the highest honours in it.
Ill listen to his opinion.

Hotblack Desiato

Stimulant wrote: »

I might not like or support all these elected officals, but they have been present for years and they can be judged appropiately and there motivations can be seen from past behaviour.

Exactly and they will be putting themselves forward for election in the future, so what they say now will have consequences for them personally. If they are caught in a lie or speak blatant nonsense it will have consequences for them - a single issue group can say what they like, however ridiculous.

FionnMatthew

ninja900 wrote: »

Exactly and they will be putting themselves forward for election in the future, so what they say now will have consequences for them personally. If they are caught in a lie or speak blatant nonsense it will have consequences for them.

In an ideal world, perhaps that is true. But most politicians lie or speak blatant nonsense, and it has few enough consequences for them, if any. Some would say that those are the key activities of the vocation, in the present day.

Call Me Jimmy

I'm not sure what the politicians have to gain from this 'lie' though...? What does enda kenny get out of a yes vote that would drive him to knowingly get ireland to lose our corporation tax, lose our right to anti-abortion laws (of which he favours as a catholic), commit all our money to a super EU Army of the Apocolypse etc. etc. I don't see how he gains... unless he is being honest and telling the truth. I dunno, is it even possible for a politician to do that LOLz!!111oneonewonwun

lanod2407

ninja900 wrote: »

Exactly and they will be putting themselves forward for election in the future, so what they say now will have consequences for them personally. If they are caught in a lie or speak blatant nonsense it will have consequences for them - a single issue group can say what they like, however ridiculous.

If this was the case, no political party would survive more than ten years - we get the same stuff every 5 years, and then we go for it again 5 years later when the promises have not been delivered.

Let's face the facts here in this little country: In the past year the Irish people have voted for Two Turkeys (Bertie & Dustin for those of us who haven't had the coffee yet this morning!) - neither of which has managed to go the distance .......... I'd say there's every chance we'll make it three in a row and manage to vote for the Turkey that is the Lisbon Treaty; except this one will definitely go the distance!

Elmo

I will be voting no for the following reasons

1. Increasing our military spend. (Nothing to do with Neutrailty I just don't think Willie O'Dea or any minister for Defence should get more money).
2. Other european governments continue to avoid bring Europe to their People. E.G. 40% of people poled in the Check Republic do not know what the Lisbon Treaty is, let alone understand it.
3. The majority of parliments ratified this treaty but I don't think that any of the Prime Ministers actually read the treaty, i.e. Brian Cowan didn't read the Treaty but he will vote YES and he is the Taoiseach.
4. No mention of electing Commissioners, even if we do lose ours we should at least have an elected person in the commission during the years we do not have a commission e.g. A junior Commissioner.
5. No mention of electing The President of Europe.
6. Non-elected member's of the commission are effectively the political elite telling us what to do. Many government send their most irratating Politican's i.e. McCreevy and Maldenson. (What are the policies of the President of the EU commission??? Who is she/he??? what party do they belong to???)
7. The political elite's only reason for voting YES seems to be because there isn't a plan B. (Oddly I have seen some posters suggesting a Plan C :rolleyes: JOKE)
8. I think the treaty should be in simple English/Irish/French/German etc.

So I will vote no.

molloyjh

Elmo wrote: »

I will be voting no for the following reasons

1. Increasing our military spend. (Nothing to do with Neutrailty I just don't think Willie O'Dea or any minister for Defence should get more money).
2. Other european governments continue to avoid bring Europe to their People. E.G. 40% of people poled in the Check Republic do not know what the Lisbon Treaty is, let alone understand it.
3. The majority of parliments ratified this treaty but I don't think that any of the Prime Ministers actually read the treaty, i.e. Brian Cowan didn't read the Treaty but he will vote YES and he is the Taoiseach.
4. No mention of electing Commissioners, even if we do lose ours we should at least have an elected person in the commission during the years we do not have a commission e.g. A junior Commissioner.
5. No mention of electing The President of Europe.
6. Non-elected member's of the commission are effectively the political elite telling us what to do. Many government send their most irratating Politican's i.e. McCreevy and Maldenson. (What are the policies of the President of the EU commission??? Who is she/he??? what party do they belong to???)
7. The political elite's only reason for voting YES seems to be because there isn't a plan B. (Oddly I have seen some posters suggesting a Plan C :rolleyes: JOKE)
8. I think the treaty should be in simple English/Irish/French/German etc.

So I will vote no.

This is getting tiresome......
1. There is no provision for increasing military spending, it says improve our defensivecapabilities.

2. The other Governments were mandated by their people to do numerous things. One of those was to negotiate and ratify treaties. There were no referenda on the Ban on Cluster Bombs Treaty and there are no referenda on national budgets, which have a far greater impact on our lives!

3. Brian Cowen didn't read it because he was involved in drawing it up. So he didn't need to read it. Also PMs generally wouldn't have time to read through all bits of legislation that comes their way, which is why they have paid experts to do it for them and present them with their findings.

4. Commissioners do not represent their country of origin, i.e. Irelands Commissioner does not represent Ireland. They represent the Department they are in charge of, e.g. Agriculture, across the EU. The move of reducing the number of Commissioners is an attempt to get rid of dead weight, why does the EU need a Minister for Multilinguism for example?

5. The President of Europe is a myth. There will be a President of the EU Council elected in future. However this post already exists and is passed amoung the various member states every 6 months.

6. The Commission does not tell us what to do. Our elected representative (MEPs) vote on the bills and laws etc in the EU Parliament. Nothing is changing in this regard.

7. There are numerous reasons for voting yes (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310477)

8. No treaty or legal document of any description is in "plain" language. However there are "plain" English summaries on the likes of the http://www.reformtreaty.ie/ or http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

FionnMatthew

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I'm not sure what the politicians have to gain from this 'lie' though...? What does enda kenny get out of a yes vote that would drive him to knowingly get ireland to lose our corporation tax, lose our right to anti-abortion laws (of which he favours as a catholic), commit all our money to a super EU Army of the Apocolypse etc. etc. I don't see how he gains... unless he is being honest and telling the truth. I dunno, is it even possible for a politician to do that LOLz!!111oneonewonwun

TBH, I don't credit most of our politicians with the wherewithal to have an ulterior motive. At the most, I'd accuse them of talking nonsense most of the time. I certainly don't think many of them have any more of a grasp on politics than most of the electorate. Popular support does not necessarily correlate with demonstrably high intelligence. If it did, one wonders whether it would do so favourably or unfavourably.

No. I wasn't making a point about the Lisbon treaty at all, really. I was just commenting on (what I would consider) ninja900's naivete.

Why should we assume that the opinions of the elected officials are worth listening to, though? Why assume it's not just more unwanted noise?

molloyjh

FionnMatthew wrote: »

TBH, I don't credit most of our politicians with the wherewithal to have an ulterior motive. At the most, I'd accuse them of talking nonsense most of the time. I certainly don't think many of them have any more of a grasp on politics than most of the electorate. Popular support does not necessarily correlate with demonstrably high intelligence. If it did, one wonders whether it would do so favourably or unfavourably.

No. I wasn't making a point about the Lisbon treaty at all, really. I was just commenting on (what I would consider) ninja900's naivete.

Why should we assume that the opinions of the elected officials are worth listening to, though? Why assume it's not just more unwanted noise?

Unwanted and unhelpful noise more like! Its another example of a poorly run campaign by the main political parties. The only advice I can give people on this is read up on it for yourself. If you rely on the campaigning you'll get the No camp feeding you bs to beat the band and the Yes camp not really feeding you anything. You're in no better position to accurately judge the benefits/drawbacks of this Treaty from listening to either side. Its a disgrace.

oscarBravo

Elmo wrote: »

4. No mention of electing Commissioners, even if we do lose ours we should at least have an elected person in the commission during the years we do not have a commission e.g. A junior Commissioner.

As always, whenever this particular red herring¹ comes up, I'll ask the inevitable resulting question (to which I've yet to receive a straight answer: if we elect "our" commissioner, how do you avoid the inevitable descent of EU politics to the parish pump level?

If you have elections, you have canvassing. If someone wants to be elected, they have to promise to deliver for their constituents. This is directly at odds with a commissioner's mandate.

5. No mention of electing The President of Europe.

And again, I'll ask the follow-up question: elected by whom, and how? Popular majority vote across the entire Union? QMV among half a billion voters? Electoral college?

More importantly, why?



¹ I describe this as a red herring, because it has nothing to do with Lisbon. Whether or not the treaty is ratified, it doesn't change. Therefore, it's utterly irrelevant.

ShooterSF

Sorry this is a repost from after hours but I googled the subject and its the first topic it found. Thought I was in politics.....

First off I'm no socialist and actually don't think bush is that bad (Oh and forsee someone quoting that sentence as a reason to right off everything else I say) but im voting No.

Simple enough reasons I never sign a contract I don't read and I'm sorry I aint reading 300 pages of a treaty that by one of it's own rules can ammend itself after (if) it's passed. Might as well sign a contract with a big gap between the last line and my signature with the words "To be filled in after you sign" written on it.

Also at no point has anything struck me as yes that would improve my life, make me happier etc. its all vague as s**t. Why should I vote yes when not one thing I've read has helped out no #1 (As in me )

Oh and speaking of vague, I seen in one of your signatures "Vote Yes for a democratic Europe" Huh? Don't we vote in our MEPs? Are we getting to vote in our commissioner or the president etc(seemingly NOT) if we vote yes? Isn't that what democracy is? peoples right to vote in positions of power so the people in these positions are truely the voice of the people. And if I vote No is the E.U suddenly going to turn into a Monarchy or something? Please if you reply to nothing else in my post focus on that point cause I'm honestly confused.... As for paddy power disgusted I missed out on it at 7/1 as i didnt honestly have the faith in my kind

Hotblack Desiato

FionnMatthew wrote: »

No. I wasn't making a point about the Lisbon treaty at all, really. I was just commenting on (what I would consider) ninja900's naivete.

Careful now, play the ball not the man

If there is a disconnect between actions and consequences, that is the fault of us as the electorate, not the politicians

Whatever about the government parties, it's not credible to suggest that FG/Labour would knowingly support a bad deal. It would be so easy for them to have used Lisbon to attack the government hard and repeatedly. The only reason they're not doing so must be because they are convinced that Lisbon is the best possible deal for Ireland.

Hotblack Desiato

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why should I vote yes when not one thing I've read has helped out no #1 (As in me )

Just because you're not convinced to vote Yes, it doesn't follow you are automatically justified in voting No. What are the benefits and risks to you in voting No? The idea that no=no change is not credible, the train is getting ready to pull out of the station with or without us.

Oh and speaking of vague, I seen in one of your signatures "Vote Yes for a democratic Europe" Huh? Don't we vote in our MEPs?

Yes we do but they do not have anything like the powers that a proper parliament has. Lisbon gives them more powers. Democracy +1

Are we getting to vote in our commissioner or the president etc(seemingly NOT) if we vote yes? Isn't that what democracy is?

It's what democracy can be, but not necessarily what it should be. Some countries elect prosecutors or judges and this leads to extreme populist policies. Likewise, a directly elected commissioner or president will feel he/she has to act in the interests of their voters (national, party group, or whatever) rather than in the interests of the whole EU.

We vote for TDs, TDs vote for Taoiseach, Taoiseach selects Cabinet and Cabinet is approved by TDs. We don't vote for a Taoiseach directly. We don't vote for a Minister directly, except to appoint them as a TD. That doesn't mean we live in an undemocratic country.

Call Me Jimmy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry this is a repost from after hours but I googled the subject and its the first topic it found. Thought I was in politics.....

First off I'm no socialist and actually don't think bush is that bad (Oh and forsee someone quoting that sentence as a reason to right off everything else I say) but im voting No.

Simple enough reasons I never sign a contract I don't read and I'm sorry I aint reading 300 pages of a treaty that by one of it's own rules can ammend itself after (if) it's passed. Might as well sign a contract with a big gap between the last line and my signature with the words "To be filled in after you sign" written on it.

Also at no point has anything struck me as yes that would improve my life, make me happier etc. its all vague as s**t. Why should I vote yes when not one thing I've read has helped out no #1 (As in me )

Oh and speaking of vague, I seen in one of your signatures "Vote Yes for a democratic Europe" Huh? Don't we vote in our MEPs? Are we getting to vote in our commissioner or the president etc(seemingly NOT) if we vote yes? Isn't that what democracy is? peoples right to vote in positions of power so the people in these positions are truely the voice of the people. And if I vote No is the E.U suddenly going to turn into a Monarchy or something? Please if you reply to nothing else in my post focus on that point cause I'm honestly confused.... As for paddy power disgusted I missed out on it at 7/1 as i didnt honestly have the faith in my kind

As someone said already today, ye don't vote in your taoiseach! How can that be, I thought this was a democracy? That is the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that you are applying to this treaty.

djpbarry

ShooterSF wrote: »

Simple enough reasons I never sign a contract I don't read and I'm sorry I aint reading 300 pages of a treaty that by one of it's own rules can ammend itself after (if) it's passed.

Not without ratification.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also at no point has anything struck me as yes that would improve my life, make me happier etc. its all vague as s**t. Why should I vote yes when not one thing I've read has helped out no #1 (As in me )

How would a 'No' vote benefit you personally?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Don't we vote in our MEPs?

Yes and they will be given more power under Lisbon.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are we getting to vote in our commissioner or the president etc(seemingly NOT) if we vote yes? Isn't that what democracy is?

Not necessarily; there are plenty of positions of authority in democracies that are not subject to election by popular vote.

FionnMatthew

ninja900 wrote: »

Careful now, play the ball not the man

Ninja900, I made a concession to the man by explicitly stating that it was only in my opinion that you were naive. In any case, it oughtn't really to faze you that someone thinks you're naive. I'm sure you've a thicker skin than that. I don't mean it in any derogatory sense.

If there is a disconnect between actions and consequences, that is the fault of us as the electorate, not the politicians

I'd be more willing to make it a symptom of our collective social psychology than to attribute blame to any one sector. It isn't exactly preposterous to expect our politicians to be aware too, and to hold themselves to standards of honesty, integrity and verbal coherence.

Whatever about the government parties, it's not credible to suggest that FG/Labour would knowingly support a bad deal.

See, that comes at exactly the point I'm criticizing. It's at least argumentum ad verecundiam to produce the political parties' preferences in the Lisbon treaty as even a remotely sound indicator of which way we should vote. It's perfectly credible, for instance, to suggest that FG/Labour would unknowingly support any deal.

And it should simply have no bearing whatsoever on how you make your decision.

The most depressing thing about all of this is that the political campaigns for either assent or dissent to the treaty presume that nobody's going to read it. That's why they're telling us how to vote. They don't think the electorate is up to it. It's a lapse of responsibility for the parties to do anything but urge the electorate to read the treaty and make up its own mind.

Anyone who's voting on the treaty based on second hand info ought not to vote at all. The official opinion of one of our esteemed political parties really ought to be the last place you look for advice, not because of motive, but because of an assumption of incompetence and effective illiteracy.

The only reason they're not doing so must be because they are convinced that Lisbon is the best possible deal for Ireland.

And their being convinced ought not to mean anything to a discerning citizen. Their opinion is not valid input for a political decision making process. Neither are newspaper polls, European exhortations, party-lines, etc. If you haven't made your mind up on your own, based on proper, informed consideration of the text itself, and having researched it thoroughly, then using your vote will be spoiling your vote. If you haven't done that, you haven't earned your vote. If you haven't done that, you really ought to stay away from the polling station, because you ought to consider yourself part of the democratic rot.

FionnMatthew

oscarBravo wrote: »

As always, whenever this particular red herring¹ comes up, I'll ask the inevitable resulting question (to which I've yet to receive a straight answer: if we elect "our" commissioner, how do you avoid the inevitable descent of EU politics to the parish pump level?

If you have elections, you have canvassing. If someone wants to be elected, they have to promise to deliver for their constituents. This is directly at odds with a commissioner's mandate.

Is it too much to expect that the electorate would be intelligent enough not to apply the "what will you do for yours truly" rationale to their decision making process, and actually individuate candidates based on how suitable they are for the job, irrespective of their partiality? And, as a corrolary, is it too much to expect that candidates would not descend to the most banal "political promise" based canvassing procedure, and even refrain from spoonfeeding the electorate with the most manipulative and insidious of PR?

Is it a necessary consequence of democratic procedure that it always deteriorates to the "parish pump" level?

oscarBravo

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Is it too much to expect that the electorate would be intelligent enough not to apply the "what will you do for yours truly" rationale to their decision making process, and actually individuate candidates based on how suitable they are for the job, irrespective of their partiality? And, as a corrolary, is it too much to expect that candidates would not descend to the most banal "political promise" based canvassing procedure, and even refrain from spoonfeeding the electorate with the most manipulative and insidious of PR?

Is it a necessary consequence of democratic procedure that it always deteriorates to the "parish pump" level?

Yes, yes and yes, respectively. Nothing I have seen - up to and including the current referendum campaign - has convinced me otherwise.

ShooterSF

What do you mean voting "No" is not going to mean no change? What will change? Our constitution? Our laws? Our tax rates?

As for
"Likewise, a directly elected commissioner or president will feel he/she has to act in the interests of their voters (national, party group, or whatever) rather than in the interests of the whole EU."
Don't you mean the interests of whoever votes them in? It just means they care less what average joe thinks of their decisions and instead focus on what MEPs think of them.

The only reason I can conceive for the governments support of it is when something goes wrong they can hold up their hands an go "Don't blame us, it's brussells"

That my friends is not democracy. Sure it'll be a great day for bureaucracy!

FionnMatthew

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, yes and yes, respectively. Nothing I have seen - up to and including the current referendum campaign - has convinced me otherwise.

Couldn't that be a false induction? One might argue your answer relies on a ceteris paribus clause in the question to obtain. One wonders, too, whether making some things "unequal" might yield different answers to those questions.

Congrats on hitting the 7001 post mark, btw!

oscarBravo

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Couldn't that be a false induction? One might argue your answer relies on a ceteris paribus clause in the question to obtain. One wonders, too, whether making some things "unequal" might yield different answers to those questions.

Honestly, I'd need to see a seismic shift in attitudes before I'd have any faith in the Irish (or any other, for that matter) electorate. Case in point: Martin Cullen. The attitude in the south-east seems to be that "sure, he's a complete muppet - but he's our complete muppet."

Ceteris paribus - sure, but it's hard to imagine what would have to change to make me feel differently.

Congrats on hitting the 7001 post mark, btw!

Wow, I must be getting verbose in my old age.

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

That my friends is not democracy. Sure it'll be a great day for bureaucracy!

In some construals, bureaucracy is a cornerstone of stable democracy, since increased efficiency makes determination of consensus less and less easy, and measures increasingly bypass popular forums. In this paradigm, bureaucracy is the brakes that help us steer, lest the too-powerful engine put us in the ditch. So bureaucracy and democracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories.

FionnMatthew

oscarBravo wrote: »

Honestly, I'd need to see a seismic shift in attitudes before I'd have any faith in the Irish (or any other, for that matter) electorate. Case in point: Martin Cullen. The attitude in the south-east seems to be that "sure, he's a complete muppet - but he's our complete muppet."

I absolutely endorse your sentiments. If I get you, democracy is not the "least worst" way to appoint commissioners.

I share your pessimism. I actually wonder whether democracy might work better if it were redefined appropriately what exactly might comprise the demos properly so called.

But such considerations are repugnant for other reasons.

Elmo

This is getting tiresome......
1. There is no provision for increasing military spending, it says improve our defensivecapabilities.

2. The other Governments were mandated by their people to do numerous things. One of those was to negotiate and ratify treaties. There were no referenda on the Ban on Cluster Bombs Treaty and there are no referenda on national budgets, which have a far greater impact on our lives!

3. Brian Cowen didn't read it because he was involved in drawing it up. So he didn't need to read it. Also PMs generally wouldn't have time to read through all bits of legislation that comes their way, which is why they have paid experts to do it for them and present them with their findings.

4. Commissioners do not represent their country of origin, i.e. Irelands Commissioner does not represent Ireland. They represent the Department they are in charge of, e.g. Agriculture, across the EU. The move of reducing the number of Commissioners is an attempt to get rid of dead weight, why does the EU need a Minister for Multilinguism for example?

5. The President of Europe is a myth. There will be a President of the EU Council elected in future. However this post already exists and is passed amoung the various member states every 6 months.

6. The Commission does not tell us what to do. Our elected representative (MEPs) vote on the bills and laws etc in the EU Parliament. Nothing is changing in this regard.

7. There are numerous reasons for voting yes (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055310477)

8. No treaty or legal document of any description is in "plain" language. However there are "plain" English summaries on the likes of the http://www.reformtreaty.ie/ or http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

1. How do you propose we "improve our defensive capabilities" without spending some money???????

2. Other governments are mandated, and they can choose to hold a refruendum if they want, the chose not to because their people would vote no.

3. Did Eamon Gilmore or Enda Kenny read it, did they help draw it up?????

4. I amn't suggesting that the commissioner represents a country I am suggesting that we vote for Commissioners and Junior commissioner every five years.

5. How will the president be elected? By the public? or by politicans?

6. I am suggesting that the main reason the yes side keep give is that we wouldn't be part of Europe and that their is no plan B, this is the impression I am getting. And that is why I am voting no.

7. We should have more legal documents in plain language. However this document is all over the place, in comparison to other Treaties and Constitutions.

molloyjh

Elmo wrote: »

1. How do you propose we "improve our defensive capabilities" without spending some money???????

2. Other governments are mandated, and they can choose to hold a refruendum if they want, the chose not to because their people would vote no.

3. Did Eamon Gilmore or Enda Kenny read it, did they help draw it up?????

4. I amn't suggesting that the commissioner represents a country I am suggesting that we vote for Commissioners and Junior commissioner every five years.

5. How will the president be elected? By the public? or by politicans?

6. I am suggesting that the main reason the yes side keep give is that we wouldn't be part of Europe and that their is no plan B, this is the impression I am getting. And that is why I am voting no.

7. We should have more legal documents in plain language. However this document is all over the place, in comparison to other Treaties and Constitutions.

1. Improve could just as eaasily mean re-apportioning funds within the defence budget and/or reorganisation of the defense forces etc. It probably will mean spending money, but that is not what the Treaty is looking for.

2. Exactly, they can choose to hold a referendum. It is within their mandate as elected officials to ratify treaties though also. That is what they have done. There is nothing wrong with it. If their electorate don't like it then they should force change in that area. Its a lot like Collins' plenapotentiary (SP?) position given to him by DeV in his negotiations with the English, where he gave him the right to make the decision and then blasted him for making it without consulting him. These people elected their officials to make policy decision for them and are now giving out that they have done just that.

3. I don't give a damn about Glimore or Kenny or any other politician. I made up my mind regardless of their waffle. I would suspect (but don't know) that all political parties had their legal experts read the Treaty and then report back with their findings, summary and judgement on it.

4. Why should we vote for a Commissioner if we don't know what position (s)he will be filling? That doesn't make sense.

5. The President will be elected by the Council in a similar way to the way the Taoiseach is elected by the Dail and I haven't heard anyone giving out about that. And he will have very little in the way of power either, he'll act more like a mediator/facilitator for Council sittings.

6. I agree that the Yes campaign has been run very, VERY badly. However refer to number 3 above, I don't care what the campaigners have to say. I have access to the information myself and can make up my own mind independantly from them. You can do the same, and dare I say you should do the same.

7. When trying to write a Treaty about day to day interactivity between 27 independant countries you are going to have to end up with an unwieldy document from a legal perspective. Have you ever read the deeds to a house? They are pretty complex and thats just a fairly simple legal concept.