We'll tell you everything YOU need to know!

Plotician · 13-09-2009 9:29pm #1

Ok, can someone explain the following sentence to me...

"You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland to continue the present arrangements for Ireland’s military neutrality."

So which way round is it, or what is this statement supposed to mean?

oscarBravo · 13-09-2009 9:31pm

Where did you get that sentence from?

Plotician · 13-09-2009 9:34pm

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_your_decision.html

oscarBravo · 13-09-2009 9:38pm

So what you actually want explained is:

You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland to:
allow Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon;

allow Ireland to agree to certain decisions in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice in future with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad;

allow Ireland to agree at the European Council to certain changes in the EU Treaties; these changes may require a referendum or require the approval of the Dáil and Seanad;

continue the present arrangements for Ireland’s military neutrality.

Makes slightly more sense in context, although I'll concede it could be better phrased.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 9:46pm

ok, what slightly more sense does it make, still confused here!

oscarBravo · 13-09-2009 9:50pm

What if it was phrased like this:

You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland to:
allow Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon;

allow Ireland to agree to certain decisions in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice in future with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad;

allow Ireland to agree at the European Council to certain changes in the EU Treaties; these changes may require a referendum or require the approval of the Dáil and Seanad;

while continuing the present arrangements for Ireland’s military neutrality.

Would it make sense then?

Plotician · 13-09-2009 9:53pm

That's a hypothetical question.

This is the site that's being promoted on RTE as the place to go to for clarity (at tax payers expense i presume).

Plus why mention neutrality at all if its not a decision factor.

I still need an explanation.

Tridion · 13-09-2009 9:56pm

Plotician wrote: »

That's a hypothetical question.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Plotician wrote: »

This is the site that's being promoted on RTE as the place to go to for clarity (at tax payers expense i presume).

It does provide clarity. One sentence that could be worded better does not mean the whole website is the same.

Your presumption is incorrect. The government is not allowed to spend any money on the campaign.

Plotician wrote: »

Plus why mention neutrality at all if its not a decision factor.

Because research carried out after the last referendum showed many people thought that Lisbon would affect our neutrality. It is mentioned to assure people that neutrality is not affected.

You've been given an explanation but I'm guessing you're a hard No voter and will continue to have "issues" with the Lisbon Treaty even when every single concern of yours has been addressed and clarified.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:00pm

Hi Tridion,

of fair enough pull me apart on my comments, but maybe you can put forward an explanation of what the statement means?

Appreciated.

Tridion · 13-09-2009 10:04pm

It basically means that whether the Lisbon Treaty is ratified or not, Ireland can keep being neutral.

In fact, if the Lisbon Treaty passes, it would be the first time that Irish neutrality is mentioned in a treaty, either at EU or international level. So ratification of Lisbon actually reinforces our neutrality.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:09pm

As a point of clarification:

Statutory responsibility for the establishment of the referendum commission lies with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.

The Government has already made clear that it is committed to ensuring that the referendum commission will have sufficient time and resources to fulfil its role in respect of the referendum on the European constitution, as indeed it had for the second referendum on the Nice treaty.

Source: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0592/D.0592.200411090134.html

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:11pm

So you would consider the statement to be clear and unlikely to cause any confusion, or at least question?

Tridion · 13-09-2009 10:21pm

Plotician wrote: »

So you would consider the statement to be clear and unlikely to cause any confusion, or at least question?

What is your point? I've already acknowledged it could have been better worded.

I've explained the sentence to you. Do you need further explanation or not? If not, you have no further problem

Um, on the Referendum Commission. Where exactly would you like their money to come from, if not from the government? Hmm?

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:26pm

Ok, now your reponse is moving towards the chaotic.
Are you saying that taxpayers money is in fact used to fund the referendum commission?

Tridion · 13-09-2009 10:33pm

Plotician wrote: »

Ok, now you're reponse is moving towards the chaotic.

There is nothing chaotic about my posts.

Plotician wrote: »

Are you saying that taxpayers money is in fact used to fund the referendum commission?

Plotician, let me repeat my very simple question. Where do you think that Referendum COmmission gets their money from, if not the taxpayer? What other options are there?

I think you're a bit confused. This is the Referendum Commission's website on the Treaty:

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:36pm

Tridion wrote: »

Your presumption is incorrect. The government is not allowed to spend any money on the campaign.

???

Tridion · 13-09-2009 10:38pm

Plotician wrote: »

???

Sorry, I will correct that. The government is not allowed to spend any public money arguing for one side or the other in the campaign.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:39pm

anyway,

to get back to the original point, the commission has a responsibility to clearly communicate information.

I still think the statement is unclear.

You may have clarified it for me (debateable), but how are you going to do that for anyone else who happens to visit the site?

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:41pm

This is an honestly open question as i don't know the answer.
Who pays for the posters?
(and the more i think about that, who pays the governments salaries)

Maybe we should not bother with the government isn't allowed to spend money argument?

Tridion · 13-09-2009 10:43pm

Plotician wrote: »

anyway,

to get back to the original point, the commission has a responsibility to clearly communicate information.

I still think the statement is unclear.

You may have clarified it for me (debateable), but how are you going to do that for anyone else who happens to visit the site?

Argh! The website you got that sentence from is the Dept of Foreign Affairs website!!

The RefCom website, as already linked to, is www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

As for whether the sentence has been clarified for you, it isn't really open for debate. Either it is clear to you or it isn't: there's no one else involved. If you would like further clarification just ask for it.

Plotician wrote: »

This is an honestly open question as i don't know the answer.
Who pays for the posters?

Each organisation pays for their own posters. So it is Fianna Fail money that pays for theirs, Ireland For Europe pays for theirs (their money comes from donations from the public), etc etc.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:50pm

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
Welcome to the Referendum Commission’s Lisbon Treaty 2009 website.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_your_decision.html
Your Decision

All on the referendum commissions site.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 10:52pm

ok, shall we close this thread and i'll write to them asking if they consider the statement clear.

I'll post their reply here assuming i get one.

Tridion · 13-09-2009 10:58pm

Plotician wrote: »

ok, shall we close this thread and i'll write to them asking if they consider the statement clear.

I'll post their reply here assuming i get one.

As you wish but I don't really see what your problem is.

It's very simply stating that whether we vote yes or no, Ireland will remain neutral. Simple.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 11:04pm

Ok, lets leave it for others to make their own judgement on whether the statement is capable of being confusing.

As a reminder here is the statement:

You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland to continue the present arrangements for Ireland’s military neutrality.

ixtlan · 13-09-2009 11:30pm

Actually I am a Yes... and I would agree it's unclear.

Good luck with getting a change though. I complained 2 weeks ago that they don't make available the Considated Treaties but only the Lisbon Treaty which will be considered unreadable by most people. I also complained that their Lisbon treaty pdf is not properly searchable unlike their own treaty guides. Nothing changed on the web-site.

So, yes, that phrase is badly worded as it suggests that voting no might cause a change in Ireland's neutrality...

However I expect that this is not a conspiracy but rather just some poor judgement.

I do believe Ireland's neutrality is unaffected by Lisbon, though I think Ireland needs a proper debate on exactly what "neutral" means. Our triple lock makes us subservient to the US, Russia, China, France and Britain, and probably the only country in the world that cannot choose to send it's troops where it likes. Is that neutral?

Ix.

Plotician · 13-09-2009 11:44pm

Thanks for the considered response IX. A refreshing change to what can be a fairly intransigent stance from certain others.

I don't actually expect a response from the commission either, but i do think that clarity and provision of information is within everyone's right to expect.

Yes a debate concerning Ireland / neutrality would be welcomed. We're walking a fine line between actual neutrality and perceived neutrality (if that makes sense). At the moment i think ordinary people in other countries do still see us as a neutral nation - long may it last!

K-9 · 13-09-2009 11:59pm

Plotician wrote: »

Yes a debate concerning Ireland / neutrality would be welcomed. We're walking a fine line between actual neutrality and perceived neutrality (if that makes sense). At the moment i think ordinary people in other countries do still see us as a neutral nation - long may it last!

Would agree with you there, but it is for us to state our policy as regards to Neutrality.

We could decide to have the Swiss model and have conscription. True Neutrality would involve Conscription to the Irish Army.

Unlikely though, as very few countries have conscription anymore, most that had it, are removing it.

Plotician · 14-09-2009 12:01am

Not sure if this is wise (plus i did mention it on another thread), but there is also a questionable sentence on the Department of Foreign Affairs website.

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

"If a second referendum is successful, Ireland’s instrument of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, to be lodged with the Italian Government, will refer to both the Treaty and the Decision."

I believe this sentence should start with something like...
"If a second referendum results in approval"

Again maybe an oversight, but it's unfortunate that a rejection of the treaty is inferred to be a failure. (The point being that any referendum is successful if it results in a democratic decision).

We'll tell you everything YOU need to know!

Comments