Barroso seeks speedy Lisbon vote

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

The question is, though- do you believe that the there is some conspiracy going on to ensure that RefCom can't do their job?

Whose question is that? It's not mine - I never said anything about a conspiracy. I merely pointed out a consistent and undeniable pattern of successive governments ignoring reports of earlier commissions and not allowing them enough time to do their work.

One would have thought given how big a factor voter understanding or the lack of it was in losing the last referendum, the government would allow the commission whatever time is reasonably necessary. The EU has muddled along satisfactorily enough (in the face of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression) since we rejected Lisbon the last time. Even from a strictly pragmatic Yes point of view, I don't see why the government should risk a 2nd rejection for the sake of running the referendum 2 or 3 months sooner.

conchubhar1

but this time

they have to explain the exact same thing and later the few addidtions

surely to god they should manage that properly

Hitman Actual

gizmo555 wrote: »

Whose question is that? It's not mine - I never said anything about a conspiracy. I merely pointed out a consistent and undeniable pattern of successive governments ignoring reports of earlier commissions and not allowing them enough time to do their work.

Sorry, it's just that with the thread in general being about the referendum being deliberately rushed, I thought you were trying to link this to it, or something. My mistake.

gizmo555 wrote: »

One would have thought given how big a factor voter understanding or the lack of it was in losing the last referendum, the government would allow the commission whatever time is reasonably necessary. The EU has muddled along satisfactorily enough (in the face of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression) since we rejected Lisbon the last time. Even from a strictly pragmatic Yes point of view, I don't see why the government should risk a 2nd rejection for the sake of running the referendum 2 or 3 months sooner.

Okay, that's a fair point. Personally I don't care if it's November or December or whenever, but I would just like to see the whole thing over and done with too. It's getting very tiresome at this stage.

markomongo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What's the point, some of them don't even mention Lisbon...

All exept two are in relation to Lisbon although they may not mention it. Two were posted to get across the mentality of these people to justify my suspicions of them and in my view, still have a relation to 'the Lisbon mentality' and are therefore just.

markomongo

I think the problem with the yes campaign lies in the vague nature of the treaty as well as with the way the legal writing style can be interpreted. The quotes i mentioned earlier have grave significane here. I just hope the people can see that this treaty is un-democratic in its nature and send it back again.

oscarBravo

markomongo wrote: »

I just hope the people can see that this treaty is un-democratic in its nature and send it back again.

How exactly would a treaty go about being democratic in nature?

PopeBuckfastXVI

markomongo wrote: »

I think the problem with the yes campaign lies in the vague nature of the treaty as well as with the way the legal writing style can be interpreted.

The treaty is not at all vague, have you read it, and have you read the consolidated versions of the treaties it amends? It's as plain as day, not vague at all.

The way the legal writing style can be interpreted? You mean in only one specific way? Because that's the only reason to use legal writing style, to remove ambiguity.

murfie

But are the guarantees or changes that we wanted being put in the new treaty? Neutrality, Commissioner, taxation.....there may be others.....

If they are, surely its a new legal document and needs to be ratified again by the 27 countries.
If they are not being put into the wording of the treaty then why would Ireland want to vote yes, as the concerns of the voting majority in the country were not dealt with.

PopeBuckfastXVI

murfie wrote: »

But are the guarantees or changes that we wanted being put in the new treaty? Neutrality, Commissioner, taxation.....there may be others.....

If they are, surely its a new legal document and needs to be ratified again by the 27 countries.
If they are not being put into the wording of the treaty then why would Ireland want to vote yes, as the concerns of the voting majority in the country were not dealt with.

They are being put into the accession treaty of Croatia. We are voting on both at the same time.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

How exactly would a treaty go about being democratic in nature?

How would an election be democratic in nature?

Any ideas? It is a bit tricky...

okay, I'll indulge you. Constitutional amendements are generally performed by the representatives of a country - but this is based on the precept that the representatives represent the populations they are supposed to represent. In that case Ireland had about 89% Yes, and the UK about 65% Yes - or maybe not...?

Can the legality of the Constitutional Amendments contained in Lisbon be subject to a national judicial review? I don't think so.

The wonderful democratic opportunity afforded by Lisbon II - it is so nice and democratic. Would Lisbon III and IV be equally democratic? Sorry... I forgot the 'legally binding legally binding legally binding' guarantees. So Lisbon II is actually Lisbon..... plus verbal agreement tack-on of something which doesn't affect the Treaty as [a] the issues they cover were not supposed to be subject to Lisbon in the first place and it doesn't change the wording of the treaty itself. But hell, how would you suggest a treaty could be any less democratic? I suppose they could just falsify the referedum results...

The race against time to get Lisbon ratified before the UK gets a vote!

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

How would an election be democratic in nature?

Any ideas? It is a bit tricky...

okay, I'll indulge you. Constitutional amendements are generally performed by the representatives of a country - but this is based on the precept that the representatives represent the populations they are supposed to represent. In that case Ireland had about 89% Yes, and the UK about 65% Yes - or maybe not...?

Can the legality of the Constitutional Amendments contained in Lisbon be subject to a national judicial review? I don't think so.

The wonderful democratic opportunity afforded by Lisbon II - it is so nice and democratic. Would Lisbon III and IV be equally democratic? Sorry... I forgot the 'legally binding legally binding legally binding' guarantees. So Lisbon II is actually Lisbon..... plus verbal agreement tack-on of something which doesn't affect the Treaty as [a] the issues they cover were not supposed to be subject to Lisbon in the first place and it doesn't change the wording of the treaty itself. But hell, how would you suggest a treaty could be any less democratic? I suppose they could just falsify the referedum results...

The race against time to get Lisbon ratified before the UK gets a vote!

That's an awful lot of words to completely avoid answering my question.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an awful lot of words to completely avoid answering my question.

question - ob: What is democratic?

answer - rn2: The demos decides

response - ob: Answer my question!

answer - rn2: I did, here see? A quick resume.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

question - ob: What is democratic?

That wasn't my question. It's not even a rough approximation of my question. If you want to answer the question, answer the one I asked.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

question - ob: What is democratic?

answer - rn2: The demos decides

response - ob: Answer my question!

answer - rn2: I did, here see? A quick resume.

So the demos decide, right! What do you call a referendum?

View

sink wrote: »

So the demos decide, right! What do you call a referendum?

Well, I believe the standard No side response is that a referendum is undemocratic when it is held to address the fears created by the blatant scaremongering of many on the No side in the first place.

conchubhar1

some of the no side was scaremongering.

some of the yes side - **** ya just vote yes, dont read the thing.

dont be biased to one side.....

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

some of the no side was scaremongering.

some of the yes side - **** ya just vote yes, dont read the thing.

dont be biased to one side.....

Did anyone on the yes side claim that Lisbon would introduce abortion? Conscription? A European Army? A standardised EU Corporate Tax rate?

If so, please name them...

conchubhar1

did i say they did?

if so, mention where

conchubhar1

View wrote: »

A European Army?

If so, please name them...

well not an army, but there is some sort of armed groups around 3000 or so
that could be already in place - probaly is

ireland is more than likely not innvolved

i am just asking

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well not an army, but there is some sort of armed groups around 3000 or so
that could be already in place - probaly is

ireland is more than likely not innvolved

i am just asking

I presume you are referring to the Battlegroups and we are involved. Their mandate is purely a peacekeeping, disaster relief/humanitarian assistance force and the where requested to be set up by the UN. Ireland still retains full control over where are soldiers go.

conchubhar1

ye, battlegroups

thanks