The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

marco_polo

Star Chamber wrote: »

This is true. Lisbon makes this so in almost all cases where the EU would have the authority to make the law.

This is the case as it stands, Lisbon does not alter the powers of the Commission in any way.

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

... As for Giscard I hope you are not asking me to post a quote. They're on a different thread.

You made a claim, one that I know to be contested. The onus is on you to back it up. So yes, I want you post a link. Either that or abandon the claim.

Anyway, my point was, and it little matters who said it, there are many quotes from those involvced admitting that this is the EU Constitution is all but name and language.

So give citations from those others instead.

Whether or not you take them seriously is up to you.

I do not have a great deal of respect for Giscard d'Estaing.

StealthRolex

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You made a claim, one that I know to be contested. The onus is on you to back it up. So yes, I want you post a link. Either that or abandon the claim.


g.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-treaty-is-a-constitution-says-giscard-destaing-395521.html

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-treaty-is-a-constitution-says-giscard-destaing-395521.html

Interestingly, your link disproves your claim that:

StealthRolex wrote: »

The language may have changed but the sentiment of being quasi state like remains.

D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution admitted it.

Because he says, in your linked quote, that they, in drafting Lisbon were

avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary

i.e. they avoided anything that could be taken as making it 'quasi state like', and only left in the institutional reforms, the 'tools' he refers to in the linked article.

oops...

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-treaty-is-a-constitution-says-giscard-destaing-395521.html

Interesting perspective from the same paper here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-first-impressions-can-be-misleading-395534.html

Initial impressions, however, can be deceptive. First of all, M. Giscard is hardly an objective observer. As chairman of the convention that drew up the ill-fated constitutional treaty, he has an interest in its survival. The European project is a large part of his political legacy; understandably, he does not want it to see it buried.

Second, M. Giscard's remarks are addressed as much to his compatriots as to the British. And here any politician who tries to address the two audiences faces a dilemma. British Eurosceptics see both versions of the treaty as a stepping-stone to a European super-state. They saw, and still see, a referendum as an opportunity to vote "No". Many of France's "No" voters, however, saw the treaty as a sell-out to British free-marketeers and Eurosceptics. The French wanted more Europe, not less. To them, M. Giscard's article is by way of reassurance that the institutional reforms of the earlier treaty have not been lost.

But even as he stresses the similarities between the two documents – and naturally expresses a preference for the one drafted by his convention – M. Giscard throws Mr Brown a lifeline. He stresses, with undisguised frustration, the importance of Britain's opt-outs, so confirming that at Lisbon the Prime Minister successfully defended those "red lines".

We share the former French President's frustration, and regret that, in order to fend off renewed calls for a referendum, Mr Brown is "selling" the treaty on the basis of opt-outs rather than opt-ins. It is not necessary to share the former French President's vision of Europe in every detail to believe it is high time that Britain ceased to be the EU's odd man out.

As the initial article said, he is yesterdays man.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Interestingly, your link disproves your claim that:



Because he says, in your linked quote, that they, in drafting Lisbon were


i.e. they avoided anything that could be taken as making it 'quasi state like', and only left in the institutional reforms, the 'tools' he refers to in the linked article.

oops...

It's all in the interpretation

"M. Giscard d'Estaing said references to the constitution had been removed "above all to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary".

He said: "When the day comes that men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.""

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's all in the interpretation

"M. Giscard d'Estaing said references to the constitution had been removed "above all to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary".

He said: "When the day comes that men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.""

Still absolutely nothing about leaving behind 'the sentiment of being quasi state like' to use your own words though...

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's all in the interpretation

"M. Giscard d'Estaing said references to the constitution had been removed "above all to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary".

Except that there is no "threat of referenda". There are only two countries that have any legal requirement for a referendum - us and the Danes. We're having one, so unless Giscard meant "the threat of a Danish referendum" then I fear he was talking through his hat.

StealthRolex wrote: »

He said: "When the day comes that men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.""

Ah, French grandiloquence - such a gift. What you're voting on, though, is the "ashes of today", because very few people except Giscard are interested in the "flame of a United Europe".

A future state-like status for the EU is not ruled out by Lisbon, but it is not, as Giscard wanted, ruled in.

amused,
Scofflaw

jimmyw

Did anyone see Vincent Browne last night, he was fuming about not getting an answer from the panel both yes and no. They were not giving him 1 good reason to vote yes or no. Hillarious!:D Vincent is always the boy to put them under pressure and always a good laugh for the viewer to watch:D:D:D:D

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-treaty-is-a-constitution-says-giscard-destaing-395521.html

I'm glad you are doing some work on it. I actually followed a link within the link, and got a clearer exposition of what he said (my emphasis added):

In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun "constitution" and the adjective "constitutional" have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy). However ridiculous they seem, these decisions are significant. They are intended to chase away any suggestion that Europe may one day have a formal political status. They sound a significant retreat from European political ambition.

See http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html and you can satisfy yourself that I am not being unfair.

The window-dressing, which alienated many people, was done away with. Lisbon is now about institutional reform.

I still think Giscard d'Estaing is something of a pompous ass.

Macha

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I reject the treaty as it stands my vote is no. How is that undemocratic?

How is encouraging those with a vote who don't know to inform themselves and vote undemocratic?

I didn't say voting No is undemocratic. But what you're advocating is that people who don't understand the Treaty should vote No. This is undemocratic.

In a democracy, suffrage is extended to those who it is assumed have the necessary capacity to independently decide how to vote. In my opinion, people who do not understand what they're voting for (for the vast majority this is out of laziness rather than any real inability to understand) have failed to show that capacity. And you encouraging them to just go ahead and vote for one side goes against the very basis upon which they were given the vote.

I mean, according to your logic, we should give the right to vote to everyone, including all under 18s as it doesn't seem to be a requirement of yours that a person understand what they're voting on to cast their vote! Ridiculous!

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't say voting No is undemocratic. But what you're advocating is that people who don't understand the Treaty should vote No. This is undemocratic.

In a democracy, suffrage is extended to those who it is assumed have the necessary capacity to independently decide how to vote. In my opinion, people who do not understand what they're voting for (for the vast majority this is out of laziness rather than any real inability to understand) have failed to show that capacity. And you encouraging them to just go ahead and vote for one side goes against the very basis upon which they were given the vote.

I mean, according to your logic, we should give the right to vote to everyone, including all under 18s as it doesn't seem to be a requirement of yours that a person understand what they're voting on to cast their vote! Ridiculous!

We should give to the under-fives, even. And there's no reason for the dead not to have one, come to think of it. In fact, why bother with the whole tedious business? We can just randomly generate the Yes and No vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

We should give to the under-fives, even. And there's no reason for the dead not to have one, come to think of it. In fact, why bother with the whole tedious business? We can just randomly generate the Yes and No vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even your plan is overly complicated. We should just always pick no because whenever a change is proposed no one fully knows what the implications of the change will be. Yes they can educate themselves and become pretty damn sure but when it's first proposed no one knows and of course: "if you don't know, vote no". In the case of general elections, we don't know what Fine Gael would be like but we know what FF are like so the correct course of action is to vote FF forever.

It makes the whole democracy thing a lot simpler I think

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't say voting No is undemocratic. But what you're advocating is that people who don't understand the Treaty should vote No. This is undemocratic.

In a democracy, suffrage is extended to those who it is assumed have the necessary capacity to independently decide how to vote. In my opinion, people who do not understand what they're voting for (for the vast majority this is out of laziness rather than any real inability to understand) have failed to show that capacity. And you encouraging them to just go ahead and vote for one side goes against the very basis upon which they were given the vote.

I mean, according to your logic, we should give the right to vote to everyone, including all under 18s as it doesn't seem to be a requirement of yours that a person understand what they're voting on to cast their vote! Ridiculous!

Advocating that only certain members of society who have reached the age of majority but out of laziness or otherwise have not acquainted themselves with the matter in hand or have tried and failed to understand is equally undemocratic.

Anyway the way I see it is you go to the polling station, read the posters and leaflets and then vote with whichever convinces you. Even if you can't read and are deaf and dumb there is, in this country at least, no legal bar against treating the whole voting process as a nice day out and marking your X against a particular box.
For me reading the posters and deciding who I trust and believe most usually works just fine.

Now I am sick, tired and fed up with voting on all these European referenda. Don't know about the rest of you but, Thanks Crotty but no thanks.

However as a citizen of this little country, miles off the coast of Western Europe where only politicians, bankers and lawyers can earn a decent living and rests of use who don't have the wherewithal to move our monies to locations that escape the taxman I feel it is not only my right to vote on this issue it is my duty. So every time there is a referendum and I happen to be living here at the time I take my duty on board and go out and vote.

But I'm tired of it. last night on the bus home I saw a poster that said "Vote Yes for Choice" sponsored by some political party. I thought "That's it! if I vote No then my choice will be removed. I won't have to vote on this again."

That's the best Pro to a No vote I have seen so far. For me anyway.
It tells me what I want to hear and invites me to vote on the issue.

But I'm fairly sure I saw a similar, if not the same slogan a couple of years ago. maybe they didn't believe me then. Or maybe I didn't understand it.
I thought I understood the poster and voted accordingly.

You see, being tired of these trips to the polling station I have decided that I want to live in the same kind of Europe the rest of the Europeans live in. The one where they don't get a choice.

Are you with me on the logic here so far.

Vote Yes for Choice = Vote No for No Choice

I want No Choice just like the French, Dutch, Germans and the rest and if that means voting No so be it.

As for the rest of you choose accordingly.

However, seeing as there is an opinion that suggests that those who "don't understand should not vote" would it not be better if you are one of them to get out and vote No Now so in future you won't have to understand and won't have to vote.

I don't want to have to choose any more so I'm voting No for No Choice.

If the rest of you want to vote Yes for Choice - suckers for punishment if you ask me. I know you won't but what the hey, knock yourselves out. Have a ball and Get Blown Way.

I want a Europe with No Choice.

No I do realise there might just be a flaw in the logic there somewhere. Maybe that's not quite what the posters means. I don't know. You do have to trust someone.

So I did some more thinking and I figure that maybe it means something else. So, searching around what other commentators are saying about the Irish vote I began to realise that there might be some in Europe who are equally tired of the Irish voting system. Now this logic is completely flawed, but I know that anyway. So I figure if we vote No often enough they will just take our choice away.

Suits me. I mean what's the point of having a free vote if every time you have to vote Yes.

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

I mean, according to your logic, we should give the right to vote to everyone, including all under 18s as it doesn't seem to be a requirement of yours that a person understand what they're voting on to cast their vote! Ridiculous!

Harry Potter type spells won't work on me. Sorry!

Macha

I don't even know where to start with your post..it's giving me a headache trying to read it.

Most of it is totally irrelevant like references to us being a tiny island and politicians making a living but from scavenging through the flotsam I gathered that:

- you think recognising that certain members of the electorate do not understand the Lisbon Treaty is undemocratic
- you see voting as a nice excuse for a day out
- you think reading posters provides sufficient information for casting your vote (I would vote for Labour but I just really don't like that shade of red..)
- you actually don't want there to be a referendum (how democratic)
- you think a Yes vote means there can never be another referendum on Lisbon (proof please?)
-you don't seem to be aware that in referenda on the European Constitution, more people actually voted in favour than against (and in terms of countries it was 2 for, 2 against.
- you don't seem to understand how referenda work - at all.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Advocating that only certain members of society who have reached the age of majority but out of laziness or otherwise have not acquainted themselves with the matter in hand or have tried and failed to understand is equally undemocratic.

No it's not. In a democracy citizens are supposed to make informed decisions. Marking your x randomly or based on nothing but a poster goes against the entire concept of democracy. It's an abuse of the privilege of voting.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Anyway the way I see it is you go to the polling station, read the posters and leaflets and then vote with whichever convinces you. Even if you can't read and are deaf and dumb there is, in this country at least, no legal bar against treating the whole voting process as a nice day out and marking your X against a particular box.
For me reading the posters and deciding who I trust and believe most usually works just fine.

Voting whichever way convinces you is different to "if you don't know vote no", although getting your opinion from posters is ill advised regardless of which way you're voting. Also, I have to ask you why you're inclined to trust these people:
Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO


who have been against the EU since its inception and more inclined to trust the no campaign that has been proven to have lied over and over and over again instead of the dozens of reputable organisations that are campaigning for a yes vote? It's not just Fianna Fail you know.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now I am sick, tired and fed up with voting on all these European referenda. Don't know about the rest of you but, Thanks Crotty but no thanks.

But I'm tired of it. last night on the bus home I saw a poster that said "Vote Yes for Choice" sponsored by some political party. I thought "That's it! if I vote No then my choice will be removed. I won't have to vote on this again."

You see, being tired of these trips to the polling station I have decided that I want to live in the same kind of Europe the rest of the Europeans live in. The one where they don't get a choice.

Are you with me on the logic here so far.

Vote Yes for Choice = Vote No for No Choice

I want No Choice just like the French, Dutch, Germans and the rest and if that means voting No so be it.

As for the rest of you choose accordingly.

However, seeing as there is an opinion that suggests that those who "don't understand should not vote" would it not be better if you are one of them to get out and vote No Now so in future you won't have to understand and won't have to vote.

I don't want to have to choose any more so I'm voting No for No Choice.

If the rest of you want to vote Yes for Choice - suckers for punishment if you ask me. I know you won't but what the hey, knock yourselves out. Have a ball and Get Blown Way.

I want a Europe with No Choice.

Firstly I would point out the the French and the Germans have the choice to vote out the government that ratified the Lisbon treaty.

Now:

StealthRolex wrote: »

No I do realise there might just be a flaw in the logic there somewhere. Maybe that's not quite what the posters means. I don't know. You do have to trust someone.

Yes the flaw is that voting no to the Lisbon treaty does not overrule the Crotty judgement and you will be asked to vote on any future treaties. What made you think otherwise

Do you think that there will be no more treaties in future or do you really think that they'll somehow be allowed to push treaties through without referendums in future if we vote no

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I don't even know where to start with your post..it's giving me a headache trying to read it.

Yep

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

- you don't seem to understand how referenda work - at all.

And you sir appear to have no sense of humour.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

And you sir appear to have no sense of humour.

Ah right so it was a joke. I'm going to try to push my brains back into my ears now.

The thing is that your post made a hell of a lot more sense than a lot of stuff from the no side. When it becomes impossible to tell an actual position from someone taking the piss you know there's something wrong.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah right so it was a joke. I'm going to try to push my brains back into my ears now.

The thing is that your post made a hell of a lot more sense than a lot of stuff from the no side. When it becomes impossible to tell an actual position from someone taking the piss you know there's something wrong.

My apologies - dogy keyboard and bad reactions to the emoticons on my bworser.

I'm voting no but I have nothing to do with the no side other than they're voting the same way I plan on. Pure coincidence that.

My interpretation of democracy might not be the same as that described in Wikepedia and I tend to get a little upset when someone suggests that only the informed should vote.

had a bad experience with a German once over that issue and it left me scarred.

Anyway. I would prefer if everyone who had a vote made a decision and voted. But I do have to ask myself why there are people out there who do not understand. We're all over 18. Most of us have been through the education system for at least seven years. We have television, radio and posters. We even have the interweb in some places.

We've been through this before and the EU Consitution before that. We are constantly being told this is an important issue. So if at this point there are people who still do not understand the big question is Why?

Are they all lazy? I don't think so.

Or is it that this treaty is designed to be difficult to be understood and we have to take it on faith when those we trust least recommend a yes vote.
Or maybe you do trust them.

Asking the voting population of Ireland to vote in something they do not understand is dangerous.
Asking anyone to vote on anything they do not understand is immoral.

Suggesting that only a certain elite who do understand can vote and the rest should stay at home - well there really isn't a word to describe that that is not going to get me barred.

Maybe in the real world you can wave a stick shouting "Expeliarmus!" or "Ridiculoso!" or whatever and then as if by magic you can make an informed decision. (humblest apologies to HP fans)

In my little world, if after much thought and comtemplation it is still impossible to make an informed decision I will suggest to them that they try again. My only method of communicating that on the day is by voting and voting with my conscience.

In a democracy you can suggest to people that a yes vote is correct. Equally you can suggest that a No vote is correct.

You should never tell anyone not to vote.

Macha

StealthRolex wrote: »

I tend to get a little upset when someone suggests that only the informed should vote.

Why? What is it about uninformed votes that you think are so great for democracy?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Are they all lazy? I don't think so.

There's a lot of disinterested folk out there.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Or is it that this treaty is designed to be difficult to be understood and we have to take it on faith when those we trust least recommend a yes vote.
Or maybe you do trust them.

Have you ever read a contract for buying a house? Or any other bill? Have you actually ever read a legal text? It is complicated - it's the nature of the beast. To say that it's part of some intentional conspiracy theory is totally baseless. You have no proof of that and you know it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Asking the voting population of Ireland to vote in something they do not understand is dangerous.
Asking anyone to vote on anything they do not understand is immoral.

What?? You just said:

StealthRolex wrote: »

I tend to get a little upset when someone suggests that only the informed should vote.

I think you are totally, totally confused about what you think. You're talking in circles and contradicting yourself.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Suggesting that only a certain elite who do understand can vote and the rest should stay at home - well there really isn't a word to describe that that is not going to get me barred.

We do that already: no one under the age of 18 is allowed to vote.

StealthRolex wrote: »

In my little world, if after much thought and comtemplation it is still impossible to make an informed decision I will suggest to them that they try again. My only method of communicating that on the day is by voting and voting with my conscience.

Who is "they"?

StealthRolex wrote: »

You should never tell anyone not to vote.

As already asked, what is so wonderful, fantastic and amazing about uninformed people voting?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Anyway. I would prefer if everyone who had a vote made a decision and voted. But I do have to ask myself why there are people out there who do not understand. We're all over 18. Most of us have been through the education system for at least seven years. We have television, radio and posters. We even have the interweb in some places.

We've been through this before and the EU Consitution before that. We are constantly being told this is an important issue. So if at this point there are people who still do not understand the big question is Why?

Are they all lazy? I don't think so.

Or is it that this treaty is designed to be difficult to be understood and we have to take it on faith when those we trust least recommend a yes vote.
Or maybe you do trust them.

Neither of those is the case, although the first one is close to being true than the second. The treaty is long but the consolidated version is available to read and thousands upon thousands of non-biased summaries of the important issues. The reason people don't know is that there has been a consistent campaign of lies coupled with a campaign to promote the idea that the treaty is too difficult to understand. So people are told all these bad things about the treaty while simultaneously being told there's no point reading it themselves and they don't know who to trust. But of course the reason these people are spreading this idea is because if people read it themselves they'd realise that it's all a load of crap and none of the scary stuff is actually in the treaty or ever going to happen.

edit: and when you say "we have to take it on faith when those we trust least recommend a yes vote.", are you talking about Fianna Fail? Can you not get your treaty information from one of the dozens of other reliable and trustworthy sources? Do you consider Coir a trustworthy source?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Asking the voting population of Ireland to vote in something they do not understand is dangerous.
Asking anyone to vote on anything they do not understand is immoral.

I'm not asking them to do that and I would prefer if they didn't. I'm asking them to understand it

StealthRolex wrote: »

Suggesting that only a certain elite who do understand can vote and the rest should stay at home - well there really isn't a word to describe that that is not going to get me barred.

No, not a certain elite, anyone can understand it and that's my whole point. This idea that only a certain elite can understand the treaty is a myth propagated by people who want to spread lies about it. If anyone sat down for an hour or two and read www.lisbontreaty2009.ie they would understand the treaty. My point is that someone who's not bothered to make that effort shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us.

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

* poof!*

I waved my stick and shouted "Rediculus!" three times and all that happened was your quotes disappeared.

along with mine

oops

StealthRolex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I waved my stick and shouted "Rediculus!" three times and all that happened was your quotes disappeared.

along with mine

oops

Sorry Taconnel - Bad SR got out. Bad reaction to the Gibbs.

Anyway I saw this poster and it said "Your Future Starts Here - Vote Yes" and I thought, Great! If I vote No my future will start somewhere else and that's good because I really don't like here.

So I decided to Vote No so my future will start somewhere else. Somewhere nicer. Maybe warm, with Cold Jupiler.

So go tot thinking *poof*!

ah crap

It was just a dream. Apparently I shouldn't be reading posters.

Which is a shame really because I thought there were blow jobs available the the Theater Festival

Macha

StealthRolex, I have an image of you sitting at your PC wearing a wizard hat and fake beard, laughing and typing manically...surrounded by Harry Potter books.

HIB

Scofflaw wrote: »

Part Three covers quite a bit - pretty much everything except external affairs. However, the simplified procedure only makes it possible to change them within certain limits - specifically, it cannot increase the EU's competences (which means it's essentially limited to changing specific policy actions) - and the change has to be unanimously agreed and ratified by every member state. It's interesting that the government hasn't included it in the constitutional amendment, because that suggests the changes will require referendums.

The best summary is probably that there's fairly wide scope, but only for minor changes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. It is good to be able to ask someone and not need to trawl through 400 odd pages of legal speak.
On balance, I will probably vote no. The whole exercise smacks of laziness to me. Whatever changes they might want to make should be outlined now and included as part of the treaty. The treaty should also be made 'readable' in as much as this is possible. This would also have the effect of making 'crackpot claims' much harder to validate/palm off as fact. Also, they should not be avoiding referenda but encouraging all europeans to have their say ... it may take longer and require a lot more work but it is the correct approach to take ... I don't believe in papering over the cracks when it comes to something this important. The Europe exercise has been beneficial in many ways and I would like to see it continue on the right path. A half baked effort could go badly wrong. Sooner or later people will get tired of not being listened to. That's my two cent, for what it's worth, (or not worth:rolleyes:). I'll keep on reading the forums nevertheless ... maybe I'll find a good reason to vote yes!

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

StealthRolex, I have an image of you sitting at your PC wearing a wizard hat and fake beard, laughing and typing manically...surrounded by Harry Potter books.

Hold on to that image.

It's wrong and I'm sure you don't want to picture me naked poring over the consolidated version wondering which part of the Lisbon Treaty is going to legalise a red light district for English women of a certain age with PhDs looking to practice their wand waving skills.

I'm not a Harry Potter fan. Don't understand the books it but I have seen summaries of a couple of the movies.
Not understanding it don't keep me at home for the last one though. What a waste of time - should have stayed at home :-)

AS for the next movie - sorry two movies - if its anything like the last one they should vote No at the script review.

oscarBravo

HIB wrote: »

Whatever changes they might want to make should be outlined now and included as part of the treaty.

Good idea. In the same vein: while we're amending the constitution in a few weeks, we should decide on all future amendments we might want to make and include them at the same time.

The treaty should also be made 'readable' in as much as this is possible.

Dumbing down legal documents is rarely a good idea.

Sam Vimes

HIB wrote: »

The treaty should also be made 'readable' in as much as this is possible. This would also have the effect of making 'crackpot claims' much harder to validate/palm off as fact.

Each part of the treaty is readable, it's just very long. Maybe your reason to vote yes should be the simplified revision procedure which allows individual issues to be debated instead of the current set up where a massive treaty is voted on every five years or so.

Also, why do you need a reason to vote yes other than the EU has been the best thing that ever happened to Ireland? Should you not be looking for a reason to vote no?

HIB wrote: »

Also, they should not be avoiding referenda but encouraging all europeans to have their say ... it may take longer and require a lot more work but it is the correct approach to take

That's in your opinion. Firstly neither the EU nor Ireland have the power to make these other countries have referendums, secondly those countries don't prize referendums as highly as we do (in Germany and The Netherlands they're illegal) and they mostly seem quite happy for this treaty to be one of the millions of things that their governments decide for them and thirdly, after seeing the complete shambles the two referendums in Ireland have been I think they're right not to have one.

Also, why this issue? Why is it so important that a treaty that is almost exclusively boring procedural changes be put to a vote but not, say, NAMA, which has implications far greater than any treaty?