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

A call to action against Libertas

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,190 ✭✭✭techdiver


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Why does the Referendum Commission need to be able to produce an interpretation immediately, though? Surely the Referendum Commission is supposed to take a bit of time about their answers - put in a bit of thought and produce a proper answer, rather than just pretending they knew all along? They're not politicians, after all.

    puzzled,
    Scofflaw

    If I am asked to vote on something I want the simple questions answered with exact explanations. This was not done. All that happened was the No side used the utter ambiguity in the treaty to instill doubt in the voters mind and the Yes side were not able to convince or reassure the voters.

    Both sides may have believed they were correct, but that doesn't help and when people cannot make up their mind who to trust on these issues, they will inevitably vote for the status quo and reject the referendum.

    The problem we are now left with is that we have hard-line/blinded YES and NO campaigners, who will get in line with their parties respective of personal belief.

    The rest of us cannot respect either side because of the political points scoring that results and because of this the NO side will prevail. The government need to change tact on this occasion and stop harping on about Ganley and Libertas and just focus on reassuring the people about the treaty.

    We're not interested in petty arguments by the dominant political classes and dynasties in this country, I want the issue at hand to be to the fore.


  • Options
    #33
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    That's my point. If the commission cannot immediatley interpret the text how can ordinary Joe Soap do so. And remember doddering over the issue doesn't instill confidence in the members of the comission that produced the interpretation and also it must be stated that an interpretation is an interpretation, not a iron clad legal fact.
    That's ridiculous! Joe Soap doesn't understand any of the Treaties, and he'd probably have a hard time figuring out most of our domestic laws too. Laws are made by and for lawmakers and lawyers. If the average man could understand the legal language in which most laws and treaties are drafted there wouldn't be a legal profession. But there is, and lawyers are considered to be pretty educated professionals precisely because legal language is necessarily complex. The problems with having simple language are obvious. Look at the Irish Constitution for example; that's written in pretty simple language and could be "understood" by most. But what does it tell us about our rights? Not a whole lot by itself. The EU Treaties try to avoid this problem via their comprehensive language.

    We had lawyers and politicians, some of whom were involved in the negotiation and drafting of the Treaty, telling us exactly what was in the Treaty and what it meant. If that's not good enough I don't know what is.
    Getting the leagl assurances is the right direction, but it may be too late as the trust is not there. They should have secured the leagal guareentees before the treferendum as they should have know the sore points that were raised.
    It would have been pretty hard to get all the necessary legal assurances beforehand though, because
    a) it was very hard for the government to predict what arguments the No side would throw at them,
    b) of the arguments that were relatively predictable, it was impossible for the government to tell which ones would resonate with the voter, and
    c) had the government acquired all the legal assurances we are now seeking prior to the vote, the No side would have found alternative arguments to throw about anyway.

    In any case, the legal assurances being sought are largely superfluous, as our babies are not about to be micro-chipped, aborted and post-humously conscripted into an EU superarmy, regardless of whether or not we get declarations on those issues.


  • Options
    #34
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    techdiver wrote: »
    If I am asked to vote on something I want the simple questions answered with exact explanations. .

    I take it you dont vote in local/general elections so? Or is it just that ANY explanation will do to get you to vote? So if the yes side make up some crap abu tetting you a free car for your vote, then off you go? Politicians lie (or put forward policies they cant put through when the time comes) but people still vote.


  • Options
    #35
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,190 ✭✭✭techdiver


    Stekelly wrote: »
    I take it you dont vote in local/general elections so?

    Done with this. Couldn't be bothered putting my point across any more.

    Toys are out of the cot. :p


  • Options
    #36
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    techdiver wrote: »
    If I am asked to vote on something I want the simple questions answered with exact explanations. This was not done. All that happened was the No side used the utter ambiguity in the treaty to instill doubt in the voters mind and the Yes side were not able to convince or reassure the voters.

    Both sides may have believed they were correct, but that doesn't help and when people cannot make up their mind who to trust on these issues, they will inevitably vote for the status quo and reject the referendum.

    I don't have a problem with that, but it's essentially an argument for a better government campaign. It's really about not allowing the appearance of doubt, though, rather than there being any real reason why the Ref Comm should produce immediate answers.
    techdiver wrote: »
    The problem we are now left with is that we have hard-line/blinded YES and NO campaigners, who will get in line with their parties respective of personal belief.

    The rest of us cannot respect either side because of the political points scoring that results and because of this the NO side will prevail. The government need to change tact on this occasion and stop harping on about Ganley and Libertas and just focus on reassuring the people about the treaty.

    We're not interested in petty arguments by the dominant political classes and dynasties in this country, I want the issue at hand to be to the fore.

    I'm completely in agreement. The disunity of the official Yes campaign, the lack of positives, the lack of focus...I could go on. It was probably the single most depressing thing about the referendum for me.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    daveirl wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Ganley scares and unsettles the average polico because he's independently wealthy and didn't inherit his comfy Dail seat from Daddy in a nepotistic chain stretching back to the Civil War.

    The big misrepresentation I've seen in the media is that Libertas are anti-European. They are not and Ganley has stated such many times.

    What's wrong with wanting to reduce the Lisbon treaty into a six-word readable document?

    Sorry, but people really need to get their heads out of their asses in relation to Lisbon. The French rejected the initial EU charter, then the Dutch rejected it.

    Then Brussels had the bright idea to obfuscate the original text so much to render it almost unintelligible, repackage is as Lisbon and have it ratified by Government alone.

    Only we thick Paddies were stupid enough to still have the treaty mandated by popular vote. Pure FF incompetence at it's worst, arguably the terms of reference of the treaty don't encroach on Irish sovereignty and actually didn't need a referendum in the first place.

    Having worked in Brussels I can vouchsafe that some of the expense practices of the Commission would make your hair stand on end and would knock any sharp practice currently happening in the Dail and Senate into the Ha'penny place.

    Just remember that a vote against Lisbon isn't necessarily taking an anti-European stance; personally, I'm pro European, but I'm also pro-democracy.


  • Options
    #38
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    DublinWriter wrote: »



    What's wrong with wanting to reduce the Lisbon treaty into a six-word readable document?..

    Why didnt he produce a readable document if thats all he wanted? (without misrepresenting it and scaremongering about things like conscrption to a european army)


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Pure FF incompetence at it's worst, .

    and what of the other parties supporting the yes vote?

    The opposition has a moral obligation to do something to help the country the odd time instead of blindly opposing anything the government say, be it good, bad or indifferent.


  • Options
    #39
    tobias_wolf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43 ✭tobias_wolf


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    The French rejected the initial EU charter,


    following the french rejection of the treaty ,they then went on to elect one of the treatys biggest advocates as their president , who went even as far as saying that passing this treaty is one of his goals.


  • Options
    #40
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    So wait is it the empire or the rebels that get the X-Wings? It's a while since I watched it. X-Wings would definitely lean me towards their side.
    Also anyway we can get the OP's text to have a space background with a bit of catchy music? Actually I might just go back and read it with the Star Wars intro...


  • Options
    #41
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    Is Ganley still the chairman and CEO of Rivada Networks? If so then he will always be considering their interests in everything he does. The fact that they have contracts with the Pentagon amounting to more than $200m means that he should not be allowed anywhere near Irish or European politics.

    It has already been explained that treaties must be written in legal speak so as to avoid loopholes that may be exploited in future. IMO treaties are not for the public to read. They are for Government officals to read who understand legal speak.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #43
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    daveirl wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes, because the US and Irish constitutions have never ever been amended. They're identical to how they were first written.


  • Options
    #44
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    You may have worked for MNCs but were they military systems manufacturers? Rivada Networks is. I don't believe for a second that Ganley does not include the business interests of Rivada in his campaign in Europe.

    Ok perhaps the Lisbon Treaty may have been a little too complicated, but it doesn't have to be written in big crayon letters for the public to be able to read it. I stand by my comment about the way treaties are written and I could continue but I feel evercloserunion put it better earlier.


  • Options
    #45
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #46
    Agent J
    Registered Users Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    Play the ball not the man.

    Yes side didnt do it last time and if they continue will loose again.

    Although if it is passed i think we should have another one. Its only fair.

    Best 2 out of 3?


  • Options
    #47
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    daveirl wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Perhaps, but I doubt the IFA would act in a way that could damage Ireland as it would backfire. What I'm trying to get at here is that a lot of what Ganley is campaigning for could be in Rivada's interests and not Ireland's interests.


  • Options
    #48
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #49
    Ziggurat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 280 ✭✭Ziggurat


    daveirl wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    With the result that people still argue about what a particular term means. Language changes over time and what a word meant a hundred years ago may be entirely different to today.
    Hell, what a word means today and what it means in two years could be entirely different.

    Legalese sets everything out in a very, very specific manner. There is no room for interpretation and when you're drawing up an international treaty (as opposed to a national constitution) you need something that doesn't have any ambiguity.


  • Options
    #50
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Agent J wrote: »
    Play the ball not the man.

    Yes side didnt do it last time and if they continue will loose again.

    Although if it is passed i think we should have another one. Its only fair.

    Best 2 out of 3?
    Of course, the Yes side were the only side that played the man and not the ball. Lucinda, after all, is not a man: http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/lib-7-b.jpg


  • Options
    #51
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    seanybiker wrote: »
    I didnt vote last time but am this time. Pissed off that the country voted no but them plonkers are not happy with that so ill vote no.
    so you'll cut off your nose to spite your face?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    daveirl wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes, we are supposed 'to be a mature electorate who can make their own decisions'. Unfortunately this is not always the case and very often the people will follow someone if they are convincing enough, regardless of whether what they are saying is true or not. Are you ok with someone possibly campaigning for interests other than those of Ireland? I mean, what if the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty actually is in the best interests of Ireland and Europe? Are we supposed to just let someone gain more and more support when they might not even be campaigning in our interests?


  • Options
    #53
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Furious-Dave wrote: »
    Yes, we are supposed 'to be a mature electorate who can make their own decisions'. Unfortunately this is not always the case and very often the people will follow someone if they are convincing enough, regardless of whether what they are saying is true or not. Are you ok with someone possibly campaigning for interests other than those of Ireland? I mean, what if the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty actually is in the best interests of Ireland and Europe? Are we supposed to just let someone gain more and more support when they might not even be campaigning in our interests?

    Well while we're at hypotheticals would you be more comfortable with someone possibly campaigning for say the interests of banks and property developers but not the general Irish public as FF obviously has interests in those areas?
    I dont like Ganley but I don't think he's any worse than Cowen. I'm not sure where Ganley's interests lie (though there is plenty of speculation) but Im sure Cowen's isnt Joe public.


  • Options
    #54
    321654
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭321654


    I voted last time. Please go fish my vote out of whatever bin it was thrown away into and count it for the next referendum.


  • Options
    #55
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Well while we're at hypotheticals would you be more comfortable with someone possibly campaigning for say the interests of banks and property developers but not the general Irish public as FF obviously has interests in those areas?
    I dont like Ganley but I don't think he's any worse than Cowen. I'm not sure where Ganley's interests lie (though there is plenty of speculation) but Im sure Cowen's isnt Joe public.

    I don't support FF either, and as I said previously, I would prefer to have a general election before another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Also no, I would not be comfortable with someones campaign if there was a possibility they were acting in the interest of greedy banking executives.


  • Options
    #56
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    daveirl wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Sure - but how many pages of legal judgements are there, resolving the disputes over the 'clear and simple language' of the Irish or US constitutions? Thousands on thousands - and judges interpret one way, and then another, depending on the fashion of the period. Is a commitment to "family life" a bar on equal treatment of cohabitation, or gay marriage? Does it make it possible to legally discriminate against illegitimate children? Does it make it constitutional to bar women from the workforce?

    All the complexity of what the Constitution actually means is simply hidden by the retention of the original document. Claiming that the Irish constitution is simple because it is based on a 'simple' document doesn't hold up - to read the Constitution as it applies you would need to read all the judgements that reference and interpret each article.

    Of the two document - Bunreacht and Lisbon - neither is really simple. If it were a choice between two legal contracts, one written in the style of Bunreacht, and one written in the style of the EU treaties, I would prefer the latter as being far more specific. Sure, the former is more readable, but that's not the point of a contract. A 25-page "constitution for Europe" would be a splendid PR exercise, but otherwise useless.
    daveirl wrote: »
    And that's his prerogative, the exact same way the IFA can decide to campaign in their interests. You seem to think he should be banned.

    Hmm. While I'm happy in quite a few senses that Ganley has chosen to campaign and shake up the sleepy backwater of European politics in Ireland, the IFA has an Irish constituency - Irish farmers - while Libertas is still in search of one.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #57
    Pat_Mustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Pat_Mustard


    Furious-Dave wrote: »
    Perhaps, but I doubt the IFA would act in a way that could damage Ireland as it would backfire. What I'm trying to get at here is that a lot of what Ganley is campaigning for could be in Rivada's interests and not Ireland's interests.


    Never heard of the Common Agricultural Policy then, no?


    Anyway, guys, don't you all think you're over reacting?


  • Options
    #58
    tobias_wolf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43 ✭tobias_wolf


    today i have received many private messages from fellow citizens asking about taking part in the anti libertas campaign united we stand, actions are already in motion to form an online anti libertas presence,

    over the following months your help will be needed and your support vital

    anonymous will upload a video to youtube on the 1st of January 2009, stating our intentions and detail our plans that will follow in the year ahead,

    this campaign welcomes both no and yes voters of Lisbon to come together and shed their difference's for the good of Ireland and Europe
    all our welcome






    anonymous

    project united we stand


  • Options
    #59
    Pat_Mustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Pat_Mustard


    tobias_wolf wrote: »
    Over the following hours i have received many private messages from fellow citizens asking about taking part in the anti libertas campaign united we stand, actions are already in motion to form an online anti libertas presence,

    over the following months your help will be needed and your support vital in bringing this sinister organization to an end,

    anonymous will upload a video to youtube on the 1st of January 2009, stating our intentions and detail our plans that will follow in the year ahead,

    this campaign welcomes both no and yes voters of Lisbon to come together and shed their difference's for the good of Ireland and Europe
    all our welcome


    anonymous

    project united we stand

    Your grammar is terrible. It should read "During the previous". "Over the following" implies it's going to happen.

    Just like Al Qaeda?


    Anyway, you're a fruit loop!


  • Options
    #60
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Pat_Mustard wrote: »
    Just like Al Qaeda?


    Jesus, you're a fruit loop!

    Maybe, but Anti Libertas does not mean Anti No voters!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Pat_Mustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Pat_Mustard


    Seanies32 wrote: »
    Maybe, but Anti Libertas does not mean Anti No voters!

    No, it certainly doesn't. But Christ, he's a nutter!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement