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

Law Professor 'Dissects' the supposed Irish Guarantees

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    Jesus lads - I just get more confused every time I come here.

    Scofflaw, I think you are very smart, and answer each issue.
    I was verging towards yes, in some ways influenced by some of your points - particularly on neutrality.

    Thank you - I appreciate the compliment!
    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    But this treaty is also complex, confusing and can be interperated in too many ways.
    Having seen how laws can be twisted and bent, the complexity puts me off.

    Simple statements are far more open to interpretation than complex ones, though. Also, to be fair, a lot of the 'interpretations' that have been proposed during the debate are based on picking bits out of context, or are simply not realistic interpretations. The range of possible interpretations that are really possible are far smaller than it might appear.
    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    We have been lied to about PfP in 1997.

    I dont believe in the assurances, I dont like the overwhelming propaganda and political weight behind it, and I dont like having to go back and do it again.

    The guarantees I don't have a problem with from the perspective of their legal force - realistically, the other member states won't go back on commitments so publicly given. Their essential pointlessness is a separate issue.

    Fortunately, perhaps, I'm not a great media consumer (never watch TV, rarely read the papers), so I probably miss out on the propaganda and the political pressure. Of course, if I'd gone purely on the official campaigns, I'd have voted No last time myself.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #33
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Just glancing through this thread.

    AuRevoir says that the source claims
    1- It is not known when the next accession treaty is coming.

    Source says
    'At this moment it is not known when the next accession treaty will be drawn up'

    Pope says:


    thought that was strange :confused:

    My bad... didn't spot that... thanks...

    1. withdrawn...


  • Options
    #34
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    But this treaty is also complex, confusing and can be interperated in too many ways.
    Having seen how laws can be twisted and bent, the complexity puts me off.

    There's something contradictory in the above statement. You claim that the complexity of the document puts you off and that it can be interpreted in too many ways, yet do you not think that if it was written in simple, open language, it would be a lot more vulnerable to distortion and misinterpretation? A treaty such as this is written in complex legalese to minimise the number of interpretations that can be made.

    If you have a read of the Consolidated Treaty, you'll see for yourself, it's actually pretty watertight.
    I dont believe in the assurances...

    That doesn't make them any less legally binding, though.


Advertisement