End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I took the 'it cant be read' statement to mean that its not as of itself a standalone document but just a list of reference points to other documents which make up the core of the legislation,

So bsaically, you understand "it can't be read" to mean something more like "it can be read, but you have to put a bit of work in"?

this treaty is just supposed to consolidate all the other stuff,
...
the points of interest for me from the docco are Habeas Corpus and the loss of our EU comissioner

If its just supposed to consolidate stuff, then there are no changes.
If its making changes, then its not justsupposed to consolidate stuff.

I might be coming across as pedantic here, but tThis is, IMHO, exactly what is causing so much of the confusion, which is - in turn - one of the driving forcves behind the "its a conspiracy" allegation. People are making contradictory comments about the document....and somehow the Treaty itself gets blamed for the confusion that commentators are engendering.

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote: »

So bsaically, you understand "it can't be read" to mean something more like "it can be read, but you have to put a bit of work in"?

in fairness theres a huge difference between 'can be read' and 'can be picked up by the man on the street read and understood'

and from what I can see of it that bit of work is not easily done by that same man on the street.

if its so easy and readable then post up a copy here.

If its just supposed to consolidate stuff, then there are no changes.
If its making changes, then its not justsupposed to consolidate stuff.

OK, now I this I just dont understand as a sentence

I might be coming across as pedantic here, but tThis is, IMHO, exactly what is causing so much of the confusion, which is - in turn - one of the driving forcves behind the "its a conspiracy" allegation. People are making contradictory comments about the document....and somehow the Treaty itself gets blamed for the confusion that commentators are engendering.

no I would disagree, if the treaty is simple and straightforward there shouldnt be any confusion, the fact that there is so much confusion means that this is not being clearly presented to the people, the fact that it has been ratified without referendum in many countries also worries me.


anyway back to Habeas Corpus and the loss of our EU comissioner

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in fairness theres a huge difference between 'can be read' and 'can be picked up by the man on the street read and understood'

No argument from me there at all.

There's a huge difference between both, just as there's a huge difference between either of those and "can't be read".

What was said was "can't be read". What was meant was something completely different.

and from what I can see of it that bit of work is not easily done by that same man on the street.

To be quite honest, there is very little legislative text anywhere that is easily read and understood by the man on the street. I don't see that there is something exceptional, unusual, or even noteworthy about the fact that this particular piece of legislative text shares that trait....but clearly you do. Perhaps you can explain to me why its so important this time that the legislation be different to the norm?

if its so easy and readable then post up a copy here.

Now you're doing it. I've never said it was "easy and readable".

I pointed out that it is simply not true to claim that it can't be read, especially when one goes on to detail the content of what one is claiming cannot be read.

I was also pointing out that you are quite happy to understand "can't be read" as something other than "can't be read"....which I find ironic in the context that we're discussing. You have a complaint that something is not easily readable and understandable, but at the same time have no complaint that those criticising it are saying one thing and meaning another. Similarly, although I've only pointed out this fact, you've read into my comments something that I've never even suggested (i.e. that it is easy to read and comprehend).

OK, now I this I just dont understand as a sentence

Replace the word "just" with the word "only" and it might be clearer. You said that it is just meant to consolidate stuff...suggesting that its only purpose is to consolidate. Then you go on to add that as well as consolidating, its changing things.

So again, we have a case where you say one thing, but mean something else...in a discussion where one of your primary complaints is about the difficulty in comprehending something.

Now...sure...you're not trying to pass legislation or anything, but I just find it strange that you can believe that things should be written in a way that the common man can easily understand them....and then time after time, say one thing and mean another.

no I would disagree, if the treaty is simple and straightforward there shouldnt be any confusion,

Similarly, if people who didn't fully understand the treaty refrained from trying to tell others what its about, there wouldn't be any confusion.

If people who did understand the treaty also said what they meant, rather than using terms like "can't be read" to mean "can be read, but its difficult" or "just consolidating" to mean "mostly consolidating, but also introducing some changes", there would also be less confusion.

The Treaty is not to blame for the actions of those people.

the fact that there is so much confusion means that this is not being clearly presented to the people,

And you think that people mis-representing it, or using misleading language to further cloud the issue is an appropriate response?

Seriously....if the critics were writing news articles simply telling the public that htey should vote no because they don't know what the content is, then I'd be with you 100% of the way.

When those critics start offering their own misleading, inaccurate interpretations of the treaty content and history, and start using language that says one thing but means another then they are, quite frankly, part of the problem and I do not support their stance at all.

The public should demand to know what is going on. They should be encouraged to issue these demands. What should not happen is that they be given a slanted view of reality, couched in misleading language, and then told that because of this "truth" they should vote no. The people selling such snake-oil are no better than the politicians they are criticising - they are trying to define the public reaction based on ignorance, misdirection, and no small amount of fear-mongeriong.

the fact that it has been ratified without referendum in many countries also worries me.

Do you understand why it did not need a referendum in those countries? If so, can you explain why the reasons for that lack of need are worrying?

anyway back to Habeas Corpus and the loss of our EU comissioner

Why? Are they some sort of conspiracy?

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

...the fact that there is so much confusion means that this is not being clearly presented to the people...

Maybe you're just not looking hard enough. There are several explanatory links here.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyway back to Habeas Corpus and the loss of our EU comissioner

The treaty makes no mention of habeas corpus, and we're not losing our EU commissioner.

kaiser sauze

oscarBravo wrote: »

... and we're not losing our EU commissioner.

Ok.

So that means that we will always the ability to appoint a Commissioner, representing the interests of Ireland, to be present at every meeting of the EU Commission?

Our man in Havana

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Ok.

So that means that we will always the ability to appoint a Commissioner, representing the interests of Ireland, to be present at every meeting of the EU Commission?

Don't be silly. They plan to reduce the commission to 18 members so we will at some point have no commissioner.

oscarBravo

...as will every other EU member state. So we won't always have a commissioner at the table, but then neither will any other member state.

There's one very fundamental point you're missing, kaiser sauze: the role of Ireland's EU commissioner is not to represent the interests of Ireland; nor should it be.

kaiser sauze

oscarBravo wrote: »

...as will every other EU member state. So we won't always have a commissioner at the table, but then neither will any other member state.

There's one very fundamental point you're missing, kaiser sauze: the role of Ireland's EU commissioner is not to represent the interests of Ireland; nor should it be.

That was not my question and I am not missing any point. When I want pontification, I will ask for it. I understand fully what the EU Commission is. Up until now every country has always had representation. That amounts to influence in the executive branch of the EU, whether you care to accept that or not.

When does this change come into effect?

oscarBravo

kaiser sauze wrote: »

That was not my question and I am not missing any point. When I want pontification, I will ask for it.

Or provide it yourself, it seems.

I understand fully what the EU Commission is. Up until now every country has always had representation. That amounts to influence in the executive branch of the EU, whether you care to accept that or not.

Then you don't understand what the EU Commission is. Every Commissioner takes an oath to represent the interests of the Union, not of their specific member state.

When does this change come into effect?

Next year if we vote No to Lisbon, 2014 if we vote Yes.

kaiser sauze

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or provide it yourself, it seems. Then you don't understand what the EU Commission is. Every Commissioner takes an oath to represent the interests of the Union, not of their specific member state. Next year if we vote No to Lisbon, 2014 if we vote Yes.

When did we allow the change if we vote no? What mechanism comes into play to force that?

Then you don't understand what the EU Commission is.

I'll thank you to keep your baseless opinions to yourself.

oscarBravo

kaiser sauze wrote: »

When did we allow the change if we vote no? What mechanism comes into play to force that?

The Nice treaty.

I'll thank you to keep your baseless opinions to yourself.

Hey, you're the one claiming that our EU commissioner represents our interests. Got an example of Charlie McCreevey doing that lately?

kaiser sauze

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Nice treaty. Hey, you're the one claiming that our EU commissioner represents our interests. Got an example of Charlie McCreevey doing that lately?

You are correct about such subtleties as the oath, but the reality is that these people are citizens of a country that they more than likely admire.

As I said before, whether you care to admit it or not, it is influence. Influence, that for periods of time, we will be losing.

When 2014, assuming a yes vote, comes around: how long are we without our Commissioner?

bonkey

kaiser sauze wrote: »

When 2014, assuming a yes vote, comes around: how long are we without our Commissioner?

When 2009, assuming a no vote, comes around: how long as we without our Comissioner?

Ekancone

When are we gonna get to the evil jews?

bonkey

Incidentally, is it just me....

Here we are on the Conspiracies forum, where normally, people are complaining about shadowy positions of influence, and behind-the-scenes machinations and all that.

And yet, here we also are, with many of the self-same people lamenting there's a chance we'll lose (from time to time) our representative in a position which should have no connection to the nationality of the holder, but which - apparently - doesn't quite work like that.

Its alomst as though its a case that shadowy, behind-the-scenes, unofficial influence is all fine and dandy, as long as its working in our favour.

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

Incidentally, is it just me....

Here we are on the Conspiracies forum, where normally, people are complaining about shadowy positions of influence, and behind-the-scenes machinations and all that.

And yet, here we also are, with many of the self-same people lamenting there's a chance we'll lose (from time to time) our representative in a position which should have no connection to the nationality of the holder, but which - apparently - doesn't quite work like that.

Its alomst as though its a case that shadowy, behind-the-scenes, unofficial influence is all fine and dandy, as long as its working in our favour.

Come on, bonkey. These people must have something to do whilst they recover from their latest excursion into Brazilian fart fetish porn.

oscarBravo

daithifleming wrote: »

...Brazilian fart fetish porn.

/googles

Kernel

daithifleming wrote: »

Come on, bonkey. These people must have something to do whilst they recover from their latest excursion into Brazilian fart fetish porn.

I live in hope that someday you will post something sensible in here.


But the hope is fading.

Mahatma coat

seems to me that the anti treaty people are at leat making simple arguments that can be understood, wheras the pro treaty people have a lot of rhetoric about 'best interest of europe' , 'Europe's been good to us' , ' dont rock the boat' here are the good reasons /*furious hand waving */

so could someone outline the benefits for Ireland to voting yes in their own words please

Ekancone

Mahatma coat wrote: »

seems to me that the anti treaty people are at leat making simple arguments that can be understood, wheras the pro treaty people have a lot of rhetoric about 'best interest of europe' , 'Europe's been good to us' , ' dont rock the boat' here are the good reasons /*furious hand waving */

so could someone outline the benefits for Ireland to voting yes in their own words please

Why are you looking for a logic debate in the conspiracy forum?

Try here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055221452

Mahatma coat

daithifleming wrote: »

Why are you looking for a logic debate in the conspiracy forum?

Try here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055221452

on Oscar's advice I read that thread, it adds nothing to the debate except more confusion.

the CT forum is a great place for well thought out logical debate

just not from you *













*not intended as personal abuse, more a repetition of an observationhttp://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Ekancone

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on Oscar's advice I read that thread, it adds nothing to the debate except more confusion.

the CT forum is a great place for well thought out logical debate

just not from you *













*not intended as personal abuse, more a repetition of an observationhttp://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Fair enough, incidentally there is a referendum helpline being launched soon, for people who have questions about the treaty. Kinda throws cold water on the assertion that there is some big cover-up going on.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

seems to me that the anti treaty people are at leat making simple arguments that can be understood,

Agreed. They're not always accurate, but they are simple and easy to understand.

wheras the pro treaty people have a lot of rhetoric about 'best interest of europe' , 'Europe's been good to us' , ' dont rock the boat' here are the good reasons /*furious hand waving */

Hmm. The anti-treat also have a lot of rhetoric, as well as their simple-but-not-always-accurate arguments.

Surely it would be fairer to say that both sides present a lot of rhetoric.

The anti side, on top of their rhetoric, present simple-if-not-always-accurate arguments.

The pro side, on top of their rhetoric try to point out where such anti arguments are inaccurate, and (less often) offer simplified clarifications of what the treaty entails.

so could someone outline the benefits for Ireland to voting yes in their own words please

Thats been done several times in the thread you say only adds confusion. Will it somehow be less confusing because you read it somewhere else?

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote: »

Agreed. They're not always accurate, but they are simple and easy to understand.


Hmm. The anti-treat also have a lot of rhetoric, as well as their simple-but-not-always-accurate arguments.

Surely it would be fairer to say that both sides present a lot of rhetoric.

The anti side, on top of their rhetoric, present simple-if-not-always-accurate arguments.

The pro side, on top of their rhetoric try to point out where such anti arguments are inaccurate, and (less often) offer simplified clarifications of what the treaty entails.



Thats been done several times in the thread you say only adds confusion. Will it somehow be less confusing because you read it somewhere else?

that thread was about 50 pages when I read it, lots of conjecture, some points raised debated and counterpointed but the whole thing became a mess without any real cohesion very quickly

so why cant the Pro side present a simple argument?????

Ekancone

Mahatma coat wrote: »

that thread was about 50 pages when I read it, lots of conjecture, some points raised debated and counterpointed but the whole thing became a mess without any real cohesion very quickly

so why cant the Pro side present a simple argument?????

Perhaps because it is not a simple subject? Things are rarely as black and white as people would like them to be.

Mahatma coat

when something affects the lives of 500 million people I would expect that more than .1% of the population could understand it, I would expect those tha understand it to attempt to explain the issues clearly to the rest of the people, I would hope that the rest of the popluation which wished to inform themselves could find the information clearly presented to them with formulated arguments for and against.

and isnt a coperfastened treaty treaty supposed to be black and white, this is what you can do, this is what you cant, clearly written down for posterity, kinda like a constitution, not something that some faceless beurocrat can alter next year to suit his new purpose.

Ekancone

Mahatma coat wrote: »

when something affects the lives of 500 million people I would expect that more than .1% of the population could understand it, I would expect those tha understand it to attempt to explain the issues clearly to the rest of the people, I would hope that the rest of the popluation which wished to inform themselves could find the information clearly presented to them with formulated arguments for and against.

Which is why the referendum commission has setup a website and a helpline to address these issues, like I said above.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and isnt a coperfastened treaty supposed to be black and white, this is what you can do, this is what you cant, clearly written down for posterity, kinda like a constitution, not something that some faceless beurocrat can alter next year to suit his new purpose.

No, I would describe a treaty as more like a contract than a constitution, and such things cannot be black and white, life is too heterogenous and quickly evolving to have a perfectly rigid contract. In fact, such a contract is impossible.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so why cant the Pro side present a simple argument?????

Why can't the anti side present an honest one?

OK...stop, stop stop. I can hear your outrage from here. I know thats completely unfair of me. I take it back. Seriously...I didn't mean to suggest that everyone on the anti side is presenting a dishonest argument.

What I should have asked is why can't some of the anti side present an honest argument....just like what you should have asked is why can't some of the pro side present a simple one.

The answer, in both cases, is that some of each side have done just that. Some of hte pro side have presented a simple explanation, and some of the anti side have presented an honest one.

So then the problem becomes how does one recognise the honest, informed objection, and the honest, informed support over those who are either ill-informed, or dishonest about how they present the information.

Personally, I don't see a solution to that. Legal documents are complex things...its why we need a court to determine how our own constitution should be interpreted, for example. So sooner or later, we rely on someone to "dumb it down" for the common Joe like me. And of course, then you have someone else arguing that the dumbed-down presentation is inaccurate/lies/missing-important-stuff. Then you get the rebuttals, the counter-points, those weighing in with an opinion, and....you end up with an 80-page thread full of all sorts of confusion.

Now...given that we're on the Conspiracy Theories forum, lets ask the classic question that gets asked here. Qui bene? Who benefits from making sure that people are confused about the issue? Who benefits from making sure that there isn't a clear understanding of the contents of the document that people will be asked to vote on?

Well, there's two answers to that one as well....

On one hand, we could argue that it benefits the politicians, because they can then get pretty-much anything they like included into law while the public accepts a load of plamás about how its all for our good.

On the other hand, we see people saying that we should vote no because we don't know what we're voting for. Surely you have to admit that these people's argument is only strengthened the more confused the whole affair become? Make loud noises about how we're being taken for a ride....ensure that no coherent disucssion can take place....any time a clear, concise summary is offered, ensure that the same old allegations of lies/omissions/half-truths are made.....

and isnt a coperfastened treaty treaty supposed to be black and white, this is what you can do, this is what you cant, clearly written down for posterity, kinda like a constitution, not something that some faceless beurocrat can alter next year to suit his new purpose.

Now...hold on a sec. Either you know and understand what is in the treaty, or you're making claims that are adding to the very confusion that you're complaining about.

Its almost as though you're trying to make everyone aware of how much confusion there is, whilst adding to the confusion yourself all the while making the argument that this confusion is why we should vote no. Why...that would make you part of one of the two groups who stand to benefit from the very thing you're complaining about.

Fortunately, I'm not the type of guy to make allegations, so I'd never suggest that this is what you're doing...merely ask that you consider you've been the unwitting scapegoat of some shadowy anti-Lisbon-Treaty group who've manipulated people like yourself into causing confusion, adding confusion, and arguing that confusion is a reason to vote no.

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on Oscar's advice I read that thread, it adds nothing to the debate except more confusion.

At your request, oscar went to the trouble of backing up his assertion of falsehoods and misrepresentations in the first three minutes of the video that is the topic of this thread. Strangely enough, you haven't seen fit to comment on that.

kaiser sauze

daithifleming wrote: »

Why are you looking for a logic debate in the conspiracy forum?

Try here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055221452

Sorry, I want to discuss the treaty, not read some incomprehensible rambling thread where there are seventeen different conversations going on.

Ekancone

Sorry if things can't be made simple enough for you.

bonkey

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Sorry, I want to discuss the treaty,

I bet you want the freedom to raise objections that you've seen here and there....stuff that people claim the treaty says, and stuff that people claim the treaty will result in.

No?

kaiser sauze

bonkey wrote: »

When 2009, assuming a no vote, comes around: how long as we without our Comissioner?

Sine OB has ducked out I'll answer my question.

5 years out of every 15.

There won't be a NO vote.

kaiser sauze

daithifleming wrote: »

Sorry if things can't be made simple enough for you.

Is that the best cheap shot you can come up with?

I feel sorry for you.


My remark about that aimless thread stands.

kaiser sauze

bonkey wrote: »

I bet you want the freedom to raise objections that you've seen here and there....stuff that people claim the treaty says, and stuff that people claim the treaty will result in.

No?

No, I'm using this forum to ask questions. Something that can't be done on the other thread without hacks (from both sides) jumping in with baseless, factually incorrect scaremongering.

bonkey

kaiser sauze wrote: »

There won't be a NO vote.

Given that you refer to people ducking out and cheap shots in two consecutive posts, I'll just point that this is a cheap-shot attempt at ducking my question.

If you want to fault people for not answering questions, then answer those put to you.

If you prefer, I'll put it the way you did in post 63:

Assuming a NO vote, how long are we without our Comissioner as of 2009?

I'm guessing, though, that it doesn't suit your position to answer it, because it will become clear that on this issue, a YES vote results in a preferable situation.

bonkey

kaiser sauze wrote: »

baseless, factually incorrect scaremongering.

You mean like the insistence that there won't be a NO vote?
Or more like ignoring the change to the Comissioners in 2009, if we don't defer to put it off till 2014?

kaiser sauze

bonkey wrote: »

Assuming a NO vote, how long are we without our Comissioner as of 2009?

I don't know, you've made the incorrect assumption that I am familiar with that aspect of the Nice treaty.

Ask it of OB, or, more likely, you already know the answer yourself.

Otherwise try: here.

I'm guessing, though, that it doesn't suit your position to answer it, because it will become clear that on this issue, a YES vote results in a preferable situation.

You've also made an incorrect assumption here. I am undecided, I am not anti-Lisbon, or a No campaigner.

Traps only work when they are based on good assumptions.

---

I am using this forum, ludicrous as it sounds, to ask questions, of people like OB, who have more time than I and have read the Treaty.

Like I've said before, we have another silly decision by admin that conversation be stifled on Boards. This is, I feel, the best outlet right now.

kaiser sauze

bonkey wrote: »

You mean like the insistence that there won't be a NO vote?
Or more like ignoring the change to the Comissioners in 2009, if we don't defer to put it off till 2014?

Do you actually believe that there is even a slim chance that there will be a NO vote?

bonkey

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I don't know, you've made the incorrect assumption that I am familiar with that aspect of the Nice treaty.

And you don't see a problem with that? You don't see a problem that you're concentrating on what will result from a Yes vote, without having a clue what it is that you should be comparing it to?

Ask it of OB, or, more likely, you already know the answer yourself.

Otherwise try: here.

Given that you seemed so concerned about the change of status, I made the assumption that you'd have checked out what it was changing from, once made aware that the situation as of 2008 will not remain either which way.

You've felt its important to understand what the changes in 2014 would be, and you've gone and found that information out. Whether intentionally or not, you've presented this change as somehow being a bad thing because of how the system works today, in 2008.

You're now showing nothing but absolute reluctance to find out what it is you should be comparing to....the changes that come into effect in 2009.

Traps only work when they are based on good assumptions.

I'm not setting any trap. I'm pointing out how I feel the issue should be approached.

My only assumption is that you're showing inconsistent logic, which is what you're doing. You don't seem to care about what it is you should be comparing the Lisbon Treaty to...which are exactly what you will be voting to support should you vote No. You've just admitted to not being au fait with the existing Treaties. Do you not think its as important to know the ramifications of voting to maintain them as it is to know the ramifications of voting to replace them with the Lisbon Treaty?

I am using this forum, ludicrous as it sounds, to ask questions, of people like OB, who have more time than I and have read the Treaty.

And then telling those self-same people that you've no interest in going to where there is a long-running, active discussion on the topic. Several questions have been asked here that have already been answered there...but you seem to be suggesting that OB is at fault for referring you to where it is already answered, rather than writing up the answer a second time, just for you.

Should everyone with questions expect such individual treatment?

Like I've said before, we have another silly decision by admin that conversation be stifled on Boards.

One minute you argue that there's seventeen conversations going on at once, then you want to argue that conversation is being stifled.

Similarly, you assert that you can't ask questions in politics without hacks jumping in from both sides with all sorts of misleading stuff, but somehow feel that asking in a Conspiracy Theories forum with a lesser degree of moderation is going to allow a discussion with more control.

Do you actually believe that there is even a slim chance that there will be a NO vote?

More than a slim chance. I think there's a very good chance, being made better every day by the confusion thats being sown that I addressed in a post here earlier today.

Bit if you believe there isn't a hope, then why is it important to be informed? Why does it matter?

Our man in Havana

And if there is a NO vote, the govt will just keep rerunning the vote until they get a yes vote.

bonkey

Bond-007 wrote:

And if there is a NO vote, the govt will just keep rerunning the vote until they get a yes vote.

No scaremongering here. No siree. We just stick to the facts.

kaiser sauze

bonkey wrote: »

And you don't see a problem with that? You don't see a problem that you're concentrating on what will result from a Yes vote, without having a clue what it is that you should be comparing it to?


Given that you seemed so concerned about the change of status, I made the assumption that you'd have checked out what it was changing from, once made aware that the situation as of 2008 will not remain either which way.

You've felt its important to understand what the changes in 2014 would be, and you've gone and found that information out. Whether intentionally or not, you've presented this change as somehow being a bad thing because of how the system works today, in 2008.

You're now showing nothing but absolute reluctance to find out what it is you should be comparing to....the changes that come into effect in 2009.


I'm not setting any trap. I'm pointing out how I feel the issue should be approached.

My only assumption is that you're showing inconsistent logic, which is what you're doing. You don't seem to care about what it is you should be comparing the Lisbon Treaty to...which are exactly what you will be voting to support should you vote No. You've just admitted to not being au fait with the existing Treaties. Do you not think its as important to know the ramifications of voting to maintain them as it is to know the ramifications of voting to replace them with the Lisbon Treaty?


And then telling those self-same people that you've no interest in going to where there is a long-running, active discussion on the topic. Several questions have been asked here that have already been answered there...but you seem to be suggesting that OB is at fault for referring you to where it is already answered, rather than writing up the answer a second time, just for you.

Should everyone with questions expect such individual treatment?


One minute you argue that there's seventeen conversations going on at once, then you want to argue that conversation is being stifled.

Similarly, you assert that you can't ask questions in politics without hacks jumping in from both sides with all sorts of misleading stuff, but somehow feel that asking in a Conspiracy Theories forum with a lesser degree of moderation is going to allow a discussion with more control.


More than a slim chance. I think there's a very good chance, being made better every day by the confusion thats being sown that I addressed in a post here earlier today.

Bit if you believe there isn't a hope, then why is it important to be informed? Why does it matter?

I'm sorry, but there are so many inaccuracies in this post that I neither have the time, nor the inclination, to set the record straight. It would involve far too much quoting/answering/quoting/answering...

It is clear that you want to discuss this the way YOU want to. No one else has a valid point of view, and no one can ask questions.

Two things I will say:

You say that having 'seventeen' conversations in one thread is good for debate? I'm sorry, please fall on a sword. :rolleyes:

Bit if you believe there isn't a hope, then why is it important to be informed? Why does it matter?

It matters because I am a responsible citizen, I won't cast my vote without understanding. Whether that be a 'Yes' or 'No'.

For example, there is a Libertas link to consolidated texts of the treaties for weeks now. I would never dream of touching it with yours. That bunch probably have rehashed it to suit their own ludicrous agenda. Our Europeans finally got their act together, now we have one that I can trust. It's just difficult to find the time.

I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding all of this.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, let's see.

First, the narrator's introduction:

1. "...[the drafters] made the treaty virtuallyunreadable..." - no, it's not.

Which is the truth.

It's not exactly in plain English, but it can be (and has been) read, and understood.

The majority of people are not supposed to understand, which is obvious from all the propaganda coming from the government, with their massive posters, full of important info...

Good for Ireland, good for Europe.

Simple message is all they think they need for a yes vote from all the simple people.

[*]"...and deceptive..." - it's a treaty - a legal document - how can it be deceptive?

As you well know it is made up of hundreds of pages of so called amendments to existing treaties, which means people have to find the existing law and add each amendment for it to become readable.

[*]"Their actions to hide the true intentions of the treaty..." - a treaty can have no intentions other than those set out in it.

Yet in reality evidence has come to light which proves how sly they are..

The Government has hatched an elaborate plan to deceive voters over the forthcoming EU treaty referendum, the Irish Daily Mail can today reveal. A leaked email shows that ministers are planning a deliberate campaign of misinformation to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty vote is passed when it is put to the public as required by the Constitution.

Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern has even been personally assured that the European Commission will “tone down or delay”’ any announcements from Brussels “that might be unhelpful”.

[*]"...this treaty... will end democracy..." - hyperbole much? A ridiculous assertion.

For starters...

The EU will be a state.
You will be a real citizen of the state.
EU will decide your rights.
EU criminal law will overrule Irish criminal law.
EU policing will overrule Irish policing.
Many other area of legislation will be handed over to the unelected eurocrats in Brussels…

It makes aspects of the EU more democratic.

Examples of this are? as I can't think of any.

[*]"They tried to avoid [a referendum] in Ireland..." - rubbish. Ireland can't ratify an EU treaty without a referendum, since the Crotty case. This is well-known, and nobody can "try to avoid" a referendum.

Except in reality this is exactly what they achieved in France and Holland.

[*]"...the treaty has not been read by the prime ministers..." - excuse me? Hasn't been read by them?

You better tell the puppet Cowen then, as it recently slipped his mind.

They wrote the damn thing!

They may have signed it, but what makes you think they wrote it?

You claim it is all lies, but in reality what you have done is watched the beginning of the documentary, with your inconsiderable bias and hated what you saw.

So you then try to discredit the film(by the first few mins) and discourage anybody else interested enough to open the thread from watching.

Here are a few quotes from oscar's mates...

They only changed the envelope so as to make the treaty easier to swallow and to avoid referendums. The letter in the envelope is still the same. By way of the EU treaty, the EU citizens “will unknowingly agree to a number of decisions that the European politicians do not even wish to present openly to their people“- Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and president of the EU Constitutional Convent.

“They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.Nothing (will be) directly produced by the Prime Ministers because they feel safer with the unreadable thing. They can present it better in order to avoid dangerous referendums. “ - Guiliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister.

“It is questionable, whether the citizens in the respective countries will let themselves be dissuaded about the fact, that a large part of the Constitutional Treaty has been put into the new treaty. The new primary law might be unveiled as a cheat package. “ - Centre for Applied Policy research (CAP) close to the Bertelsmann Foundation on the Lisbon Treaty 2007.


All this extra transparency oscar and his fellow yes men shout about is in there somewhere.

Ekancone

How do you expect the treaty makers to create a document complex enough to achieve a remodelling of the EU with so many nations and people involved, and yet make it read like Ann & Barry? I don't think that it is possible to make the lay person understand every inch of such treaties, so what do you propose?

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote: »

Which is the truth.

The main body of the treaty was published as a supplement to yesterday's Sunday Times. It's not exactly a gripping read, but it's far from unreadable.

The majority of people are not supposed to understand, which is obvious from all the propaganda coming from the government, with their massive posters, full of important info...

Good for Ireland, good for Europe.

Simple message is all they think they need for a yes vote from all the simple people.

As opposed to all the deeply informative "no" posters: "People died for your freedom. Don't throw it away." Uh-huh. Colour me convinced.

As you well know it is made up of hundreds of pages of so called amendments to existing treaties, which means people have to find the existing law and add each amendment for it to become readable.

...or just read one of the many consolidated versions that are available.

The EU will be a state.

Not true.

You will be a real citizen of the state.

We have been citizens of Europe since Maastricht.

EU will decide your rights.

Reference to the treaty, please?

EU criminal law will overrule Irish criminal law.

Reference to the treaty?

EU policing will overrule Irish policing.

Reference to the treaty?

Many other area of legislation will be handed over to the unelected eurocrats in Brussels…

Which ones? References, please.

Examples of this are? as I can't think of any.

Tell you what: show me yours, and I'll show you mine. Answer my questions above, and I'll answer this one.

Except in reality this is exactly what they achieved in France and Holland.

For this to even resemble fact, France and Holland would have to be subject to Ireland's constitution and the Irish Supreme Court. It may surprise you to hear that they are not.

You better tell the puppet Cowen then, as it recently slipped his mind.

They may have signed it, but what makes you think they wrote it?

Something Cowen said at the same time he talked about not having read it all.

You claim it is all lies, but in reality what you have done is watched the beginning of the documentary, with your inconsiderable bias and hated what you saw.

So you then try to discredit the film(by the first few mins) and discourage anybody else interested enough to open the thread from watching.

I don't care whether anyone watches it or not. I simply pointed out the misinformation it contained in the first three minutes. If they can't get those three minutes right, why would I watch any more?

Here are a few quotes from oscar's mates...

They only changed the envelope so as to make the treaty easier to swallow and to avoid referendums. The letter in the envelope is still the same. By way of the EU treaty, the EU citizens “will unknowingly agree to a number of decisions that the European politicians do not even wish to present openly to their people“- Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and president of the EU Constitutional Convent.

“They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.Nothing (will be) directly produced by the Prime Ministers because they feel safer with the unreadable thing. They can present it better in order to avoid dangerous referendums. “ - Guiliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister.

“It is questionable, whether the citizens in the respective countries will let themselves be dissuaded about the fact, that a large part of the Constitutional Treaty has been put into the new treaty. The new primary law might be unveiled as a cheat package. “ - Centre for Applied Policy research (CAP) close to the Bertelsmann Foundation on the Lisbon Treaty 2007.


All this extra transparency oscar and his fellow yes men shout about is in there somewhere.

Shock, horror, tunaman in unprecedented ad-hominem attack.

Mahatma coat

so this turns Europe from a Confederation of States to a Federal Government??

oscarBravo

Nope.

Ekancone

I got a booklet in the door summarising the Lisbon Treaty today, it came from the referendum commission. I thought the government were keeping it a big secret or something? There is also a website and a phone number to ring if I have further queries. Is this a big illluminati plot? Are the reverse vampires trying to trick us into believing that they are being open about the treaty when it is really all in our minds?

Monotype

So let me get this right:

• The Commission makes is the primary law making force in the EU and derives new laws (with approval from parliament and ministers).
• We won't always have rep on as commissioner.
• We don't elect the rep.
• The EU Commission makes laws which benefit the EU rather that the individual countries - and they take an oath to this effect.

What's the point in the parliament if the don't have much power?
It seems like a terrible waste to pay 785 MEPs especially with all that money going missing.