What Happens if No Wins again?

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 2:22pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I think it's more about the method of disagreement, and whether some wayward soul wandering into the forum deserves the full brunt of passionate rebuttal, when some helpful advice or correction would be more constructive for all involved.

Keep the heavy guns for more deserving targets

Saying that our position is weakened due to "overuse of the thanks button" and because several people reply is different to saying we're not responding politely. but if it's about the method of disagreement I'm in complete agreement. Politeness could do with a touch up around here.

oscarBravo · 23-07-2009 2:35pm

tommym037 wrote: »

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

I don't really understand this position. Without getting into the actual arguments themselves, are you saying that even if there were disastrous consequences of a "no" vote, that the government shouldn't tell us about them?

Don't you think the potential downsides of voting one way or the other should be discussed, in order to have an informed view of the issue?

23-07-2009 2:57pm

Martin 2 wrote: »

The original expression is "when in doubt do nowt" not "when in doubt vote no", so if you can't decide between yes or no just abstain... I did that in a referendum before (not EU related tho') and in hindsight it was the best decision. A No vote is far from neutral...

The Yes side would love that wouldnt they!

I do not agree with that logic for the following reason:

No means nothing changes.
Yes means things change, and those changes cannot be understood due to the complexities of the treaty.

Therefore safer to vote No than abstain.

Furious-Dave · 23-07-2009 2:59pm

Edit: Sam's response was better and less impulsive:p

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 3:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The Yes side would love that wouldnt they!

I do not agree with that logic for the following reason:

No means nothing changes.
Yes means things change, and those changes cannot be understood due to the complexities of the treaty.

Therefore safer to vote No than abstain.

It's very naive to suggest that no mean nothing changes. And yes means that necessary and beneficial changes will be implemented. The status quo is not ok, if it was there would be no need for a treaty.

Are you going to spend the rest of your life holding Europe back because you don't want to make the effort to find out what they're asking you to vote on?

edit: and the treaty has been out for two years. Just how long do you need to learn about it?

oscarBravo · 23-07-2009 3:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No means nothing changes.
Yes means things change, and those changes cannot be understood due to the complexities of the treaty.

Therefore safer to vote No than abstain.

There's a flaw in your reasoning. You're assuming that changes are necessarily bad, and that no change is therefore inherently better than change.

If the changes are for the better, then voting against them because you don't understand them is a bad idea.

The safe option is to abstain. The wise course is to inform yourself - and it's simply untrue to say the changes can't be understood.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 3:09pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the changes are for the better, then voting against them because you don't understand them is a bad idea.

Has no one told him about the "give nixmix a million euro" clause?? :eek::pac:

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 3:11pm

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Edit: Sam's response was better and less impulsive:p

And I was thinking about editing my post out because oscarBravo's was better again

BlitzKrieg · 23-07-2009 3:16pm

No means nothing changes.

I ask this again because it was ignored in the other thread

Are you happy that at the moment it takes under the current system the EU the excess of 4 years to close any exploits or abuses in its institutions?

P. Breathnach · 23-07-2009 3:38pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

... Are you happy that at the moment it takes under the current system the EU the excess of 4 years to close any exploits or abuses in its institutions?

I am not happy that some things go wrong in the EU, and I am not happy that some people act either dishonestly or unwisely, and I'm not happy that things are often cumbersome.

But I would be surprised if the premise of your question is sound. Can you truly say that every abuse takes more than 4 years to fix?

23-07-2009 3:38pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's very naive to suggest that no mean nothing changes. And yes means that necessary and beneficial changes will be implemented. The status quo is not ok, if it was there would be no need for a treaty.

Are you going to spend the rest of your life holding Europe back because you don't want to make the effort to find out what they're asking you to vote on?

edit: and the treaty has been out for two years. Just how long do you need to learn about it?

I'm very glad that immediately got 3 replies from yes siders as it proves a point,which I will come to in a moment.

Anyway, no I'm not. Your comment on 'holding Europe back' is just silly and just more wishy washy Yes side heart string pulling.

And as for making an effort to read the treaty,as I stated in a previous post, its really only the legal eagles who can understand the full implications of the treaty due to its legalese. And if you say you 100% understand every part of that Treaty then you are deluding yourself. Do we want an EU where only lawyers know how its run?! No thanks, I believe democracy should be straightforward and if its not understandable by EVERYONE without the need for a degree in Law then its obviously not a democracy by the people for the people.

So back to the point where 3 Yes'ers jump in. Recently on Politics.ie one of you, not sure which one but definitely someone who posts here, started a thread about how the Lisbon forum there is biased towards the No side. Much hilarity ensued when it was pointed out that the majority of people voted No last year therefore its only natural that the majority of opinions would reflect that. Thats what happens when free speech is allowed.

Here its another kettle of fish and its pretty obvious this place has become a Generation Yes masturbationathon. (Reminds me of a certain middle eastern country with its army of propaganda police jumping on every topic possible to try and sway opinion)
So, and I'm not making a comment on moderation here..god forbid..but if you are truly confident of your reasoning and logic in your beliefs then you would let your arguments stand against the opposing arguments without getting all trigger happy. Thats the beauty about free speech, let the arguments stand on their own merit.

And to Blitzkrieg > No,but we dont need this Treaty to sort that out, that can be done on its own. However with or without that its pretty obvious that MEP's will do whatever they can to keep scamming the system eg http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/eu-parliament-blocks-whistleblowers-bid-for-key-budget-post/

Furious-Dave · 23-07-2009 3:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm very glad that immediately got 3 replies from yes siders as it proves a point,which I will come to in a moment.

Anyway, no I'm not. Your comment on 'holding Europe back' is just silly and just more wishy washy Yes side heart string pulling.

And as for making an effort to read the treaty,as I stated in a previous post, its really only the legal eagles who can understand the full implications of the treaty due to its legalese. And if you say you 100% understand every part of that Treaty then you are deluding yourself. Do we want an EU where only lawyers know how its run?! No thanks, I believe democracy should be straightforward and if its not understandable by EVERYONE without the need for a degree in Law then its obviously not a democracy by the people for the people.

So back to the point where 3 Yes'ers jump in. Recently on Politics.ie one of you, not sure which one but definitely someone who posts here, started a thread about how the Lisbon forum there is biased towards the No side. Much hilarity ensued when it was pointed out that the majority of people voted No last year therefore its only natural that the majority of opinions would reflect that. Thats what happens when free speech is allowed.

Here its another kettle of fish and its pretty obvious this place has become a Generation Yes masturbationathon. (Reminds me of a certain middle eastern country with its army of propaganda police jumping on every topic possible to try and sway opinion)
So, and I'm not making a comment on moderation here..god forbid..but if you are truly confident of your reasoning and logic in your beliefs then you would let your arguments stand against the opposing arguments without getting all trigger happy. Thats the beauty about free speech, let the arguments stand on their own merit.

And to Blitzkrieg > No,but we dont need this Treaty to sort that out, that can be done on its own. However with or without that its pretty obvious that MEP's will do whatever they can to keep scamming the system eg http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/eu-parliament-blocks-whistleblowers-bid-for-key-budget-post/

If treaties and the like are not written in legal speak it creates far too many loop holes.

Martin 2 · 23-07-2009 3:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No means nothing changes.

well the multinational sector, which accounts for over 80% of our exports and employs over 100,000 directly and similar numbers indirectly, strongly disagrees with that point of view and in case you don't believe me read the following:

Jim O Hara, General Manager of Intel Ireland
http://www.businessandleadership.com/leadership/news/article/13843/leadership/a-call-for-action

Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland & President of AMCHAM
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=10157&&CatID=36

Paul Duffy, Senior Executive, Pfizer Ireland.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/22/story39739.asp

American Chamber of Commerce of Ireland, which represents virtually all American multinationals in Ireland
http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=642

One way or another a yes or no vote will cause change, if not in the treaty then in our relationship with the rest of Europe and within Ireland itself.

23-07-2009 3:47pm

Furious-Dave wrote: »

If treaties and the like are not written in legal speak it creates far too many loop holes.

One could say the more content the more possibilities exist for loop holes therefore that nullifies your argument.

23-07-2009 3:48pm

Martin 2 wrote: »

well the multinational sector, which accounts for over 80% of our exports and employs over 100,000 directly and similar numbers indirectly, strongly disagrees with that point of view and in case you don't believe me read the following:

Jim O Hara, General Manager of Intel Ireland
http://www.businessandleadership.com/leadership/news/article/13843/leadership/a-call-for-action

Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland & President of AMCHAM
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=10157&&CatID=36

Paul Duffy, Senior Executive, Pfizer Ireland.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/22/story39739.asp

American Chamber of Commerce of Ireland, which represents virtually all American multinationals in Ireland
http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=642

One way or another a yes or no vote will cause change, if not in the treaty then in our relationship with the rest of Europe and within Ireland itself.

So how did the 1st No vote change things??

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 3:51pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I would be surprised if the premise of your question is sound. Can you truly say that every abuse takes more than 4 years to fix?

Yes, the new simplified revision procedure deals with that problem

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, no I'm not. Your comment on 'holding Europe back' is just silly and just more wishy washy Yes side heart string pulling.

your point is that it's safer to vote no than make changes. That logic will be the same in perpetuity, therefore you can use it to vote no to everything they ever bring forward.

Deleted User wrote: »

And as for making an effort to read the treaty,as I stated in a previous post, its really only the legal eagles who can understand the full implications of the treaty due to its legalese. And if you say you 100% understand every part of that Treaty then you are deluding yourself. Do we want an EU where only lawyers know how its run?! No thanks, I believe democracy should be straightforward and if its not understandable by EVERYONE without the need for a degree in Law then its obviously not a democracy by the people for the people.

No I don't understand every bit of the treaty but other people do and I have asked them to explain it to me. It's an amalgamation of 3 previous treaties that covers thousands of legal areas between 27 nations. It's not possible to fit it into a few pages and any attempt to do so will result in dozens of loop holes, misinterpretation and eventually going back to the drawing board to close them all, resulting in a treaty that is much the same as this one.

Which parts of the treaty do you think are unnecessary?

Deleted User wrote: »

So, and I'm not making a comment on moderation here..god forbid..but if you are truly confident of your reasoning and logic in your beliefs then you would let your arguments stand against the opposing arguments without getting all trigger happy. Thats the beauty about free speech, let the arguments stand on their own merit.

So if we're confident of our reasoning and logic we should allow people to say things that are wrong and not respond to them

Could that strange logic not be applied equally well to yourself?

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 3:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One could say the more content the more possibilities exist for loop holes therefore that nullifies your argument.

One could say that but one would be wrong. If what you can and can't do is spelled out in technical legal language, how does that mean that what you can and can't do is more ambiguous than if it's not spelled out?

edit: for example some people said that Lisbon would mean that we would never have another referendum, so I went and read the article in question and saw the following text: "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

So the commission can amend things but only with unanimous agreement from the member states and if our constitution requires a change to implement the change, a referendum will still be required. The technical legal language proved those people wrong

marco_polo · 23-07-2009 3:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One could say the more content the more possibilities exist for loop holes therefore that nullifies your argument.

I could say there is a pink unicorn in my closet. Doesn't mean it is true.

23-07-2009 3:57pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, the new simplified revision procedure deals with that problem

your point is that it's safer to vote no than make changes. That logic will be the same in perpetuity, therefore you can use it to vote no to everything they ever bring forward.

Incorrect, should a Treaty/constitution/whatever they want to call it come again, be straightforward and be positive then it will be Yes.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't understand every bit of the treaty but other people do and I have asked them to explain it to me. It's an amalgamation of 3 previous treaties that covers thousands of legal areas between 27 nations. It's not possible to fit it into a few pages and any attempt to do so will result in dozens of loop holes, misinterpretation and eventually going back to the drawing board to close them all, resulting in a treaty that is much the same as this one.

Which parts of the treaty do you think are unnecessary?

Right....yeah I'll get back to you on that once I pour over the 300 pages
Sorry got better things to do with my life.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So if we're confident of our reasoning and logic we should allow people to say things that are wrong and not respond to them

Could that strange logic not be applied equally well to yourself?

Lol,I said nothing about not responding,where did that come from!?!!! all you have to do is rebut the arguments, its that simple!

PopeBuckfastXVI · 23-07-2009 3:59pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One could say that but one would be wrong. If what you can and can't do is spelled out in technical legal language, how does that mean that what you can and can't do is more ambiguous than if it's not spelled out?

edit: for example some people said that Lisbon would mean that we would never have another referendum, so I went and read the article in question and saw the following text: "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

So the commission can amend things but only with unanimous agreement from the member states and if our constitution requires a change to implement the change, a referendum will still be required. The technical legal language proved those people wrong

I certainly prefer the current version, rather than something like:

'An EU treaty can be amended.'

Which is short, sweet and completely ambiguous.

23-07-2009 4:01pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One could say that but one would be wrong. If what you can and can't do is spelled out in technical legal language, how does that mean that what you can and can't do is more ambiguous than if it's not spelled out?

edit: for example some people said that Lisbon would mean that we would never have another referendum, so I went and read the article in question and saw the following text: "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

So the commission can amend things but only with unanimous agreement from the member states and if our constitution requires a change to implement the change, a referendum will still be required. The technical legal language proved those people wrong

We have all heard that it may have been possible for Bertie to ratify the treaty via the houses of the Oireachtas rather than referendum yet he took the referendum route. Next time I believe they will not risk it by putting it to the people therefore the possibility exists that this may be the last. And I do say possibility because nothing is certain, thats another worrying thing.

Martin 2 · 23-07-2009 4:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So how did the 1st No vote change things??

In my opinion the last no vote didn't change things drastically wrt MNC's because we're having a second referendum and in the minds of the MNC's there is a possibility/hope that we vote yes the second time.

If you had read the references I supplied you would have seen Jim O'Hara mention that but of course you replied instantly without even reading the references.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 4:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Incorrect, should a Treaty/constitution/whatever they want to call it come again, be straightforward and be positive then it will be Yes.

But the point is that it can't be the way you want it to be. A treaty covering thousands of issues over 27 nations will always be complex. I have not read the entire treaty but any parts that have been highlighted to me have been clear and easy to understand. 99% of the treaty is boring procedural changes and only a tiny amount is contentious so I have read and understood those parts. You are never going to get this short, easy reading document that you want.

Deleted User wrote: »

Right....yeah I'll get back to you on that once I pour over the 300 pages
Sorry got better things to do with my life.

I said "No I don't understand every bit of the treaty but other people do and I have asked them to explain it to me. ". You don't have to have read the treaty, other people who have read the treaty have pointed out what they see as problems. So what parts do you think are problematic?

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol,I said nothing about not responding,where did that come from!?!!! all you have to do is rebut the arguments, its that simple!

So we can respond but we can't be "trigger happy". What does that mean exactly? Should we wait a pre-defined period of time before responding or what?

Furious-Dave · 23-07-2009 4:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One could say the more content the more possibilities exist for loop holes therefore that nullifies your argument.

No it doesn't. Even if it's 3 lines long it still has to be written in legal speech. I agree that the longer the text of a treaty the more complicated it gets. But to cover everything in an EU treaty they have to be long. The people don't have to be able to understand the wording of a treaty. That's why we elected people to government, so that they can do it for us. Does a CEO of a company know everything about the financial side of business? No, that's why they have an accounting department who produces reports. Sure, the government didn't their jobs in this case but others have. Though it seems a lot (not all, or even most) of the No side have closed their eyes and covered their ears shouting LALALALALALA.

marco_polo · 23-07-2009 4:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Incorrect, should a Treaty/constitution/whatever they want to call it come again, be straightforward and be positive then it will be Yes.

Right....yeah I'll get back to you on that once I pour over the 300 pages
Sorry got better things to do with my life.

Lol,I said nothing about not responding,where did that come from!?!!! all you have to do is rebut the arguments, its that simple!

Can you could provide an example of an international treaty involving more than twenty countries that meets your simplicity criteria? Just so we can see the kind of document you aspire to.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 4:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

We have all heard that it may have been possible for Bertie to ratify the treaty via the houses of the Oireachtas rather than referendum yet he took the referendum route. Next time I believe they will not risk it by putting it to the people therefore the possibility exists that this may be the last. And I do say possibility because nothing is certain, thats another worrying thing.

I havent' heard that because ratifying the treaty requires a change to our constitution and so legally requires a referendum. This will be the case until the Crotty judgement is overturned. Anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong and the technical legal language allows us to say that

BlitzKrieg · 23-07-2009 4:08pm

Can you truly say that every abuse takes more than 4 years to fix?

Not every abuse but The parliaments fix for the wage scandals was proposed in 2005 but wasnt implemented until a new parliament was seated in 2009.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 23-07-2009 4:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Right....yeah I'll get back to you on that once I pour over the 300 pages
Sorry got better things to do with my life.

Hi nixmix,

Just going to repost something here, a little food for thought for you...

Now is your chance to understand it, it's not that complex if you actually read the consolidated versions of the TEU and TFEU that it amends, especially if you read the annotated version, which tells you exactly what the difference is. You can see the annotated version here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

If you have any questions, this is a good place to ask them.

You probably won't find the treaty interesting, but you will be able to understand it, in the context of the treaties it amends, it's all in English.

Alternatively, examine the claims each side is making, if you are particularly worried about a claim from the 'No' side, then check out the relevant part of the treaty to see if they are correct. If you don't understand the relevant part of the treaty then ask a question here, there's lots of very clever people in this forum who are willing to help.

If you don't trust that the 'yes' side politicians haven't read, or don't understand the treaty, you can be sure that the 'No' side have gone through it with a fine tooth comb to find anything in it that they can use to push for a rejection.

Start with their claims, go to the source and see if their claims hold water.

You are being given a second chance, and more time to understand the treaty, so why not take advantage of that?

oscarBravo · 23-07-2009 4:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Your comment on 'holding Europe back' is just silly and just more wishy washy Yes side heart string pulling.

I noticed an article in the Times recently which stated that a common phrase being used in Germany is "no Lisbon, no enlargement". In other words, if we block the Lisbon treaty, Germany will block the accession of Iceland, Croatia and others.

Now, you can argue for and against further accession, but there's no question that we're already holding Europe back.

And as for making an effort to read the treaty,as I stated in a previous post, its really only the legal eagles who can understand the full implications of the treaty due to its legalese. And if you say you 100% understand every part of that Treaty then you are deluding yourself. Do we want an EU where only lawyers know how its run?! No thanks, I believe democracy should be straightforward and if its not understandable by EVERYONE without the need for a degree in Law then its obviously not a democracy by the people for the people.

The EU isn't a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. If it was a democracy, it would be a federal superstate - is that what you want?

The EU is a supranational organisation with 27 sovereign countries as its members. If you can come up with a treaty that would govern such an organisation in 25 pages or less, with no legalese, I'd love to see it.

So, and I'm not making a comment on moderation here..god forbid..but if you are truly confident of your reasoning and logic in your beliefs then you would let your arguments stand against the opposing arguments without getting all trigger happy. Thats the beauty about free speech, let the arguments stand on their own merit.

I've no idea what you're saying, here. You want freedom of speech, but you don't want people to say what they think if they disagree with you?

I'm confused. To whom was that remark even addressed?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 23-07-2009 4:14pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I havent' heard that because ratifying the treaty requires a change to our constitution and so legally requires a referendum. This will be the case until the Crotty judgement is overturned. Anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong and the technical legal language allows us to say that

Well it's theoretically possible to ratify an EU treaty by the Oireachtais where the competency of the EU is not being increased. It would still be open to a legal challenge, of course.

I don't think Lisbon fits the criteria as EU competencies are being increased, either way the FF government didn't bother finding out, and reverted to a default position of handing it over to the people with little or no help in understanding it.

What Happens if No Wins again?

Comments