Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not going to vote a second time.

That´s very brave of you, considering we´re being forced to vote. Where are you going to hide out on the day of the referendum? Aren´t you worried about Government hit squads tracking you down?

the_dark_side

cooperguy wrote: »

How many times does this have to be said. People voted no. The government then tried to address some of the concerns of the voters and then put the treaty to the people again. How is this a bad thing?

Hi, the government tried to address some of the concerns and put the treaty to the people again, fine. But if you read the second short paragraph in this article...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0624/1224249417090.html

...it becomes clear that the treaty has been clarified, and not changed in the eyes of Gordon Brown.
And keep this in mind, the day after the No vote won in Ireland, Gordon Brown announced to Sarkozy that he intended to ignore the Irish result... fact.
Heres a short clip well worth a quick look... Brown's reaction says it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-XNIH0G-ZA

I personally trust Brown like a bag of snakes

the_dark_side

as an aside.... respect to Brian Cowen, at least he had the honesty to say to the Irish people before the refferendum, that he had'nt read the treaty. Charlie McCreevy likewise (when he announced that you would want to be crazy to try and read it)... and I respected their opinion

It was left to us to try and make of it what we could...

PopeBuckfastXVI

I dunno, they left a vacuum that Libertas and Coir happily jumped into and filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt. The Lisbon Treaty is entirely unremarkable, and should have caused no controversy. It does far less, from a competency point of view than pretty much any other EU treaty we've so far ratified.

Some people love to stir sh*t, even where there is none though...

cooperguy

the_dark_side wrote: »

Hi, the government tried to address some of the concerns and put the treaty to the people again, fine. But if you read the second short paragraph in this article...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0624/1224249417090.html

...it becomes clear that the treaty has been clarified, and not changed in the eyes of Gordon Brown.

Exactly! Alot of the concerns of the Irish people were unfounded and not based on the text of the treaty. Therefore these concerns could be addressed and clarified without the need for a change in the treaty. If anything that increases the argument for another referendum as there was a number of misunderstandings as to what the treaty was about.

They also ensured that there was going to be an Irish commissioner in Europe which was another concern.

So after all this why is it not perfectly reasonable for another vote

Tony EH

I'm sick to the backteeth of these blaise, hand waving, attitudes some in the 'Yes' camp have about voting again.

If the shoe was on the other foot and a 'Yes' vote was returned last year, but was ignored and we were told to vote again, they'd be the first ones on here screaming blue murder about it.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sick to the backteeth of these blaise, hand waving, attitudes some in the 'Yes' camp have about voting again.

If the shoe was on the other foot and a 'Yes' vote was returned last year, but was ignored and we were told to vote again, they'd be the first ones on here screaming blue murder about it.

Oh, I don't know - I quite like voting. I probably have enough emotional investment in a Yes that I'd be worried about the possible result, but I wouldn't object to exercise itself.

In fact, in certain ways, I'd quite favour a 'Lisbon challenge' in a year or two's time - maybe a referendum vote on whether we needed to consider our ratification in the light of how Lisbon had panned out, followed by a referendum on de-ratification if the result of the first one said we did want to reconsider.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Tony EH wrote: »

If the shoe was on the other foot and a 'Yes' vote was returned last year, but was ignored and we were told to vote again, they'd be the first ones on here screaming blue murder about it.

I can't say I'd be too worried about it. If a Yes vote was returned in a first referendum, I'd expect that it would be returned by an even higher margin in the second. (Based on the fact that as peoples knowledge of EU referendum issues/knowledge of the EU in general increases, the Yes vote tends to gets stronger)

cooperguy

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sick to the backteeth of these blaise, hand waving, attitudes some in the 'Yes' camp have about voting again.

If the shoe was on the other foot and a 'Yes' vote was returned last year, but was ignored and we were told to vote again, they'd be the first ones on here screaming blue murder about it.

Id have no problem voting again and changing my stance after it passed if the government went back to Europe and discovered with the clarifications that this treaty would indeed bring about abortion and corporation tax was controlled from Europe.

In the same way that it was clarified that these things would happen and the No side are asked to reconsider.

the_dark_side

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I dunno, they left a vacuum that Libertas and Coir happily jumped into and filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt. The Lisbon Treaty is entirely unremarkable, and should have caused no controversy. It does far less, from a competency point of view than pretty much any other EU treaty we've so far ratified.

Some people love to stir sh*t, even where there is none though...

Ok, I agree... Libertas and Coir may have used the element of doubt some people have about Lisbon, as a way of gaining some political ground, fair enough. I am not into party politics, I am forming my own judgements thank you very much.

And I am sorry, I have to disagree with you. The Lisbon Treaty is an unreadable document, that we are being asked to endorse.

I ask you this.... If you were told you needed an operation that would change you somehow for the better, but you didnt have to worry as the team of experts knew what they are doing (even though they werent sure of the side effects... this operation has never been done before)

Naturally, you would be very hesitant, so you ask for details of what the operation would involve, before you agree and put your trust in their abilities... and they hand you this

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/71/852/1266.pdf

and you say no thanks, Im fine. Thats double Dutch to me, I dont know what your going to do here, and this is my body... thanks again.

And then you are told, now you are at risk, you need this special operation. You could suffer dire consequences if you dont go through with it... in fact, as we speak you are turning a funny colour, and your blood pressure is rising, theres a chance your condidtion is fatal unless you do as we say... we will listen to your concerns and try to clarify what we are about to do, and then they hand you the same document again.......

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

Ok, I agree... Libertas and Coir may have used the element of doubt some people have about Lisbon, as a way of gaining some political ground, fair enough. I am not into party politics, I am forming my own judgements thank you very much.

And I am sorry, I have to disagree with you. The Lisbon Treaty is an unreadable document, that we are being asked to endorse.

I ask you this.... If you were told you needed an operation that would change you somehow for the better, but you didnt have to worry as the team of experts knew what they are doing (even though they werent sure of the side effects... this operation has never been done before)

Naturally, you would be very hesitant, so you ask for details of what the operation would involve, before you agree and put your trust in their abilities... and they hand you this

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/71/852/1266.pdf

and you say no thanks, Im fine. Thats double Dutch to me, I dont know what your going to do here, and this is my body... thanks again.

And then you are told, now you are at risk, you need this special operation. You could suffer dire consequences if you dont go through with it... in fact, as we speak you are turning a funny colour, and your blood pressure is rising, theres a chance your condidtion is fatal unless you do as we say... we will listen to your concerns and try to clarify what we are about to do, and then they hand you the same document again.......

You have rather neglected to include in your analogy the fact that the documentation on the procedure is available to 500 million people, including a very large number of experts on extremely similar procedures, and that you've had at least 18 months already to look at it. You're not being asked to make your mind up on the spot in complete isolation as your analogy suggests.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Naturally, you would be very hesitant, so you ask for details of what the operation would involve, before you agree and put your trust in their abilities... and they hand you this

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/71/852/1266.pdf

Maybe I spent too much time with friends who are radiologists but I could almost follow that


Back on topic, the issue you have with how lisbon was presented to the people running up to the first referendum is not one really being contested, everyone on the yes side (I have yet to meet one who doesnt agree) say the government did a crap job of comfortable presenting the treaty. THough the website that was put up was quite good, but far too late.

Seeing as the campaign for the 2nd referendum hasnt begun yet, we havnt seen how they are going to present it to the public this time.

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

You have rather neglected to include in your analogy the fact that the documentation on the procedure is available to 500 million people, including a very large number of experts on extremely similar procedures, and that you've had at least 18 months already to look at it. You're not being asked to make your mind up on the spot in complete isolation as your analogy suggests.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, but in my analogy, my 'body' is metaphorical for my country, that also being a part of the European Union, so yes, the documentation is available to not only 500 million people, but 6.7 billion people if you count everyone else in the room.

The problem being, the documentation is very vauge and very technical, and the experts amongst us have done little or nothing in 18 months to make it more comprehendable (considering that this will inevitably effect 500 million people, wouldnt you think that a better effort would be made?)... and despite all our best efforts to read up on it, it remains unclear. Do I not have a point?

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh, I don't know - I quite like voting....

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Id have no problem voting again...

cooperguy wrote: »

I can't say I'd be too worried about it...clarifications that this treaty would indeed bring about abortion and corporation tax...

Ah, for god sake lads...this is just more blase posturing. :rolleyes:

And Cooperguy, I'd say about 4 people gave a shite about "abortion". It isn't even on the majority of people's radar.

ixtlan

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sick to the backteeth of these blaise, hand waving, attitudes some in the 'Yes' camp have about voting again.

If the shoe was on the other foot and a 'Yes' vote was returned last year, but was ignored and we were told to vote again, they'd be the first ones on here screaming blue murder about it.

Hmmm.... but this is exactly what has happened for the past 20+ years... in the sense that a Yes vote still means another vote in the future.

We have a treaty... we vote on it.

If No, we tweak and vote again.

If Yes, negotiations start on the next treaty and we vote again on that one.

Ix

Tony EH

the_dark_side wrote: »

Yes, but in my analogy, my 'body' is metaphorical for my country, that also being a part of the European Union, so yes, the documentation is available to not only 500 million people, but 6.7 billion people if you count everyone else in the room.

The problem being, the documentation is very vauge and very technical, and the experts amongst us have done little or nothing in 18 months to make it more comprehendable (considering that this will inevitably effect 500 million people, wouldnt you think that a better effort would be made?)... and despite all our best efforts to read up on it, it remains unclear. Do I not have a point?

Yes, you do have a point. Such documents are made deliberately unreadable. There is no sound reason to cloud the information in gobbledygook.

Tony EH

ixtlan wrote: »

Hmmm.... but this is exactly what has happened for the past 20+ years... in the sense that a Yes vote still means another vote in the future.

We have a treaty... we vote on it.

If No, we tweak and vote again.

If Yes, negotiations start on the next treaty and we vote again on that one.

Ix

Nothing was "tweaked". We are being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing.

ixtlan

the_dark_side wrote: »

I ask you this.... If you were told you needed an operation that would change you somehow for the better, but you didnt have to worry as the team of experts knew what they are doing (even though they werent sure of the side effects... this operation has never been done before)

Naturally, you would be very hesitant, so you ask for details of what the operation would involve, before you agree and put your trust in their abilities... and they hand you this

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/71/852/1266.pdf

and you say no thanks, Im fine. Thats double Dutch to me, I dont know what your going to do here, and this is my body... thanks again.

And then you are told, now you are at risk, you need this special operation. You could suffer dire consequences if you dont go through with it... in fact, as we speak you are turning a funny colour, and your blood pressure is rising, theres a chance your condidtion is fatal unless you do as we say... we will listen to your concerns and try to clarify what we are about to do, and then they hand you the same document again.......

Actually you raise an interesting and valid analogy. I would look at it a little differently.

In this case operations like this one of far greater complexity have been done before. Previous treaties had much bigger changes for the EU. The side-effects of those treaties were exactly as expected. No shocks or allergic reactions arose.

Nonetheless it is a complex treaty, like an operation. Would you really refuse a complex life-saving operation because you didn't feel that you yourself could carry it out on another person? Or a better analogy, since you could rightly point out that this is not life-saving... would you live your life with a limp while doctors were telling you that a relatively routine but still complex procedure could be carried out on your knee? Would you be willing to go to medical school for years, give up your job, study until you were 100% sure you understood what was being done? Or would you take a reasonable approach, look at what had happened in similiar procedures, look at the track record of the doctors, understand in general what was being done, and agree?

And before you comment on the track record of the doctors, this of course refers to the EU as a whole, and since even the no-voters are mostly pro-EU, everyone must think that the EU has done a pretty good job over the past few decades.

Ix.

BlitzKrieg

There is no sound reason to cloud the information in gobbledygook

except the requirement that the treaty has to work within the structures of 27 constitutions (or equivilent) and numerous other international institutions and cannot be a treaty on its own and must instead be an amendment to prior treaties so needs to link to all the prior treaties in the correct manner so that if an issue is taken to court the treaty will not have any fundemantal flaw in its structure.

THats a pretty good explanation for the gobblygook.

I mean is there an equivilent legal document we can point to? Well not the UN because it purposely has no legal structure or prominance. National or federal constitutions work with the assumption that the 2nd party (the people) are defined by the document therefore there is no legal minefield when applying laws to them. Hence simple language.

Here a document has to be written to appease the laws of 27 countries, no easy task.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah, for god sake lads...this is just more blase posturing. :rolleyes:

You're entitled to your opinion, but I doubt you know us as well as we know us.

Tony EH wrote: »

And Cooperguy, I'd say about 4 people gave a shite about "abortion". It isn't even on the majority of people's radar.

It's amazing how often the subject comes up, then, for something that's not on the radar.

Nothing was "tweaked". We are being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing.

You're not, in fact. Even if you were willing to disregard the effect of the other guarantees, you're keeping the 'Irish' Commissioner. Most people would regard that as a large change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing was "tweaked". We are being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing.

Almost the same thing. The retention of a commissioner for all states is a change, although one that comes through a political decision rather than a treaty change.

One can argue that the clarification of the meaning of the treaty through protocols is a tweak, not to the treaty itself, but to the view we can take of it. So the circumstances of the vote have been tweaked.

This seems reasonable since as with all our EU referenda we don't discuss whether provisions are good or bad, we only discuss whether they mean X or Y.

Ix.

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's amazing how often the subject comes up, then, for something that's not on the radar.

And it's mostly brought up by people on th 'Yes' side.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're not, in fact. Even if you were willing to disregard the effect of the other guarantees, you're keeping the 'Irish' Commissioner. Most people would regard that as a large change.

Em...we are. Not a single word of the treaty has been altered. It is the same treaty were are being asked to vote on again.

the_dark_side

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually you raise an interesting and valid analogy. I would look at it a little differently.

In this case operations like this one of far greater complexity have been done before. Previous treaties had much bigger changes for the EU. The side-effects of those treaties were exactly as expected. No shocks or allergic reactions arose.

Nonetheless it is a complex treaty, like an operation. Would you really refuse a complex life-saving operation because you didn't feel that you yourself could carry it out on another person? Or a better analogy, since you could rightly point out that this is not life-saving... would you live your life with a limp while doctors were telling you that a relatively routine but still complex procedure could be carried out on your knee? Would you be willing to go to medical school for years, give up your job, study until you were 100% sure you understood what was being done? Or would you take a reasonable approach, look at what had happened in similiar procedures, look at the track record of the doctors, understand in general what was being done, and agree?

And before you comment on the track record of the doctors, this of course refers to the EU as a whole, and since even the no-voters are mostly pro-EU, everyone must think that the EU has done a pretty good job over the past few decades.

Ix.

hmm, I hear what you are saying...but, rewind the clock to before the last refferendum. I have a healthy, fully functioning body, ok... not perfect, but nobodys perfect.
Now, one year later, I am being told that I have a limp, I dont feel it, I dont see it, but I am told that its there... the experts can see it, even though I may not be able. And a 10 minute operation would sort it....ok?

Also, I have had two operations before, nothing too serious thankfully, but I made damn sure I knew exactly what was going to be done before I went into the hospital. Then when I was inside, I got to meet the doctors and nurses, talk with thme one to one, and have them inform me in detail.. including diagrams, what was going to happen, what the side effects were going to be, if any, and how it would be likely to effect me in the short term/long term... would I be altered permenantly etc.

I felt confident

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

Yes, but in my analogy, my 'body' is metaphorical for my country, that also being a part of the European Union, so yes, the documentation is available to not only 500 million people, but 6.7 billion people if you count everyone else in the room.

I was going to include everyone on the planet, but wasn't sure it was clear!

the_dark_side wrote: »

The problem being, the documentation is very vauge and very technical, and the experts amongst us have done little or nothing in 18 months to make it more comprehendable (considering that this will inevitably effect 500 million people, wouldnt you think that a better effort would be made?)... and despite all our best efforts to read up on it, it remains unclear. Do I not have a point?

Hm. I'm not sure how you would like it made clear, though. There are all kinds of commentaries, interpretations, analyses, histories, etc etc available. What would constitute clarity here? A single definitive opinion on the meaning of every article, and all the implications thereof? Who should offer such an opinion, and why would you trust them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

And it's mostly brought up by people on th 'Yes' side.

Our experiences evidently differ. Have a read of politics.ie, and you'll find plenty of No proponents arguing that Lisbon could indeed bring in abortion - it was also brought up repeatedly by Libertas (and Jens-Peter Bonde). Ganley's vote in the NW elections largely rested on an anti-abortion base - note his and Simmons' endorsement by COIR.

Tony EH wrote: »

Em...we are. Not a single word of the treaty has been altered. It is the same treaty were are being asked to vote on again.

We're not being asked to vote on the Treaty, though, and we weren't first time either. We were asked to vote on whether the government may ratify the Treaty - in this referendum, we're being asked whether the government may ratify the Treaty in the light of the new guarantees. Since those guarantees will either be given practical effect immediately (in the case of the Commissioner), or will be turned into Protocols to the same treaties Lisbon amends, the quibble that the text of Lisbon itself hasn't changed is just that - a quibble.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

the_dark_side wrote: »

hmm, I hear what you are saying...but, rewind the clock to before the last refferendum. I have a healthy, fully functioning body, ok... not perfect, but nobodys perfect.
Now, one year later, I am being told that I have a limp, I dont feel it, I dont see it, but I am told that its there... the experts can see it, even though I may not be able. And a 10 minute operation would sort it....ok?

I fear we may be stretching this too far... but it is amusing...

Before the last referendum you had a progressive ailment that was going to lead to a limp. True you didn't really notice it, and even now you're not too sure. The doctors though, who have always been right before, are saying that it's only going to get worse and the longer you leave it the more complex the operation will be. In fact you have been told that without the operation/treaty you cannot go snowboarding/accept new states, as the risk of serious injury is too great.

So, you can leave things as they are, with the likelihood of more serious problems down the line, or resolve it for the moment. Though in order to stay in tip-top shape you are likely to need more procedures in future. Nothing lasts forever.

the_dark_side wrote: »

Also, I have had two operations before, nothing too serious thankfully, but I made damn sure I knew exactly what was going to be done before I went into the hospital. Then when I was inside, I got to meet the doctors and nurses, talk with thme one to one, and have them inform me in detail.. including diagrams, what was going to happen, what the side effects were going to be, if any, and how it would be likely to effect me in the short term/long term... would I be altered permenantly etc.

I felt confident

You can do the same here. There is a lot of expert opinion on the treaty, mostly in favour. Before voting no you should be really sure that the majority really are wrong in their views. The treaty itself is not that complex. You can read it. If you were really determined you probably could get a meeting with one or more MEPs (both for and against, Irish and non-Irish), especially if you were willing to travel to Brussels

I fear much of our discussion is going on about the impossibility of understanding the treaty. It is not that bad.

PopeBuckfastXVI

The treaty is pretty readable.

Conchubar1 has undertaken to read it himself, with afaik no legal training, and seems to be getting on ok, with the help of people here.

It's not in hieroglyphics, it's a legal document written using legal terminology, but it's still English (or French, or Irish or whatever) and quite readable. I suggest you try the consolidated versions of TEU and TFEU as amended by Lisbon.

If you find something you dislike, you should then check if it was in the relevant treaty before Lisbon, if so, then it's not a Lisbon issue.

Let's stop pretending it's some sort of secret code, it's written in clear and unambiguous legal English.

The last thing you could accuse it of being is vague, especially when you include the existing clarifying protocols. It's, in fact, deliberately worded so as *not* to be vague, and only open to one legal interpretation.

The same as every other EU treaty that we have passed, at that.

Hitman Actual

Tony EH wrote: »

Hitman Actual wrote:

Id have no problem voting again...

Ah, for god sake lads...this is just more blase posturing. :rolleyes:

Worst quoting ever. I never said that at all. All I said that is I'd expect a Yes vote to be returned in even greater numbers.

And why do you think you can read peoples minds over the 'internet tubes', with all this talk of "blaise posturing"? I have no problem with second referendums on any subject, but nor could I care less if you believe that or not.

cooperguy

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah, for god sake lads...this is just more blase posturing. :rolleyes:

And Cooperguy, I'd say about 4 people gave a shite about "abortion". It isn't even on the majority of people's radar.

That's funny because i met three of them a month before the vote who would not be swayed from there argument that it would be brought in. There was a large "Family Values" element supporting the Libertas campaign aswell. But either way thats just one of the issues that was brought up and that we needed clarification on.

the_dark_side

After attempting to read a condensed version of the Lisbon Treaty, I decided to look it up on youtube; one of the first short films I saw was a talk given by the Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde at an event that was organised by Irish MEP, MEP Kathy Sinnott.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

You would understand my viewpoint if you took a quick look at this short film (2.40 mins)