If you can convince me to vote yes or no...

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

...pretend I am an idiot,

Are you saying that the line is the ambiguity of how things are implemented, and that the EU treaties should not put in stone how the EU will work which as a strong supporter of compromise, democracy and diversity I *could* accept, but wouldn't the new power to alter the make up the structure of treaties allow the EU to change things if needed without all this proceedure in future so couldn't they provide a more concrete framework now and if problems arise alter the structure as needed to repair it.

or are you agreeing with me that we need a better definition of how these policies are going to work?

Hmm. Even EU Directives don't set specifics. That's for their transposition into national law - all the Directive sets is the intended result. For a Treaty, so much the more the case. Should the Treaty, instead of saying that member states are to provide "aid and assistance", say "send 12,000 blankets and emergency food supplies for 50,000"?

It's true that the Treaty enables the EU to change things without an intergovernmental conference and a treaty negotiation, but it cannot sidestep national ratification by all member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

I guess my problem isnt really with the treaty, but with the goverment, they dont seem to be saying what their relation is to alot of the changes, I was looking at the posters on the way home and they are all so bland in what this treaty will do, relying instead on the old safety points of more jobs more money etc.

But yeah thanks for the info, I am still very much undecided and have spent a good bit today reading it up. I like it for the most part but I havnt really had anyone sell it to me if you know what I mean.

OscarBravo since you know so much about it in relation to prior treaties tell me is the Lisbon treaty really just a step in a process already started in prior treaties, i.e its not anything new and all that is in the treaty we agreed to in previous treaties and just because of how our constitution is set up the EU is forced to doublecheck with us at each step despite us agreeing so many treaties past? Or am I grabbing the wrong end of the stick here?

ballooba

seamus wrote: »

I've seen a lot of this, "I'm voting No, because I don't know what I'm voting for". That makes no sense. Why not vote Yes? If you don't understand the consequence of your vote either way, then why are you choosing one over the other? Why not abstain altogether?

The ball is well and truely rolling on this now, and there is plenty of literature around to dig your teeth into. So either go and read it and make a decision, or don't vote at all.

Even Brian Cowen admits he hasn't read it cover to cover. If it's not accessible (i.e. intelligible) then it shouldn't be put to a referendum. Bring it back when it's finished I say.

Scofflaw

ballooba wrote: »

Even Brian Cowen admits he hasn't read it cover to cover. If it's not accessible (i.e. intelligible) then it shouldn't be put to a referendum. Bring it back when it's finished I say.

Have you read it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

OscarBravo since you know so much about it in relation to prior treaties tell me is the Lisbon treaty really just a step in a process already started in prior treaties, i.e its not anything new and all that is in the treaty we agreed to in previous treaties and just because of how our constitution is set up the EU is forced to doublecheck with us at each step despite us agreeing so many treaties past? Or am I grabbing the wrong end of the stick here?

You are, a little. For the most part, Lisbon isn't introducing anything radically new. It makes quite a few fairly minor structural changes, shifting the balance of power around the various EU bodies to enhance checks & balances. There are some shifts in competence from national government to the EU, which equates to a transfer of sovereignty, which is why we have to have a referendum according to the Crotty judgement and the Constitution.

I've linked to this before, it's worth a read.

seamus

ballooba wrote: »

Even Brian Cowen admits he hasn't read it cover to cover. If it's not accessible (i.e. intelligible) then it shouldn't be put to a referendum. Bring it back when it's finished I say.

The constitution of Ireland isn't all that accessible - have you ever tried to read it?

Fact is, you can't expect them to come back with something that can be read cover-to-cover by any Joe Soap with a Junior Cert. education. Stuff like this needs to be carefully worded, which is why there's a tonne of legalese inserted and big long words which obfuscate the whole thing.

While it might make sense for the EU to issue a short version (i.e. one intended to be a reference but not an interpretation), it's a little pointless - they can't claim to be unbiased. That's refcom's job - they examine the whole thing, pull out the important bits and then present it in simple wording covering the main points. Most importantly, refcom is unbiased.

ballooba

seamus wrote: »

The constitution of Ireland isn't all that accessible - have you ever tried to read it?

I have. Many times. I find it quite user friendly.

I'll have more of a go at this Lisbon craic closer to the referendum date.