Democracy my B0lllox!!!

Scofflaw · 02-08-2009 02:38AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

By that standard no EU Treaty would have been regarded as carrying the majority of public support.

But would undeniably be considered as carrying the majority of public acceptance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 02-08-2009 02:39AM

realcam wrote: »

Well, I can share what I believe while at the same time stating that I do not believe I'm the know-it-all and I'm open to corrections.

I believe that the way the EU manifests itself right now is that of a European superstate. I believe also that this superstate is deliberately not being implemented as a true democracy. And with true democracy I mean in the spirit of the great philosophers of the era of the french revolution defining a true state of the people (or at least a well meant attempt at it).
I believe that this European superstate is going to be geared towards the 'ruling classes' rather than the 'plebs' (forgive me some simplifications) and that the pleb's political influence and control will be greatly reduced. This is the impression I get from the Lisbon treaty and it's interpretations anyway. That is my issue with the Lisbon treaty. I don't care about this stupid abortion, neutrality, tax bullsh1t. Just as a background.

Ireland found itself now in the /sarcasm unfortunate sarcasm\ situation that a referendum was required, while in practically all the other member states the Lisbon treaty could be imposed - in the true spirit of what's to come - by the ruling classes upon the plebs. Even more unfortunate, this referendum went wrong, because our government - living up to it's abilities as demonstrated in practically all other areas - also messed this one up.

I'm not saying it's not in the interest of our own ruling classes/government to hammer this one home. They wanted it as much as the next lobby-infested, corporate controlled, self serving EU politician. But they messed up.

And now they've been told to get their fkn act (:D) together. Of course.

Now you know what you're dealing with, a hopeless cynic.

OK, What's the alternative democratic system?

You need to propose a system and we can look at it and see it will it be any better.

Boskowski · 02-08-2009 03:00AM

K-9 wrote: »

OK, What's the alternative democratic system?

You need to propose a system and we can look at it and see it will it be any better.

I don't need to do anything. I'm not going to write an essay on political theory here. Read summaries on Rousseau or Montesquieu.
I'm saying proper separation of powers, proper controls of the executive authority by the legislative, independent judiciary. The cornerstones of a modern democracy to name just a few. All very much watered down in what's shaping up in Europe.

Martin 2 · 02-08-2009 03:14AM

Ciks wrote: »

You'd be surprised actually, things have really picked up. June was quiet, July was okay but August is going to be great for tourism. Keep the faith, we can rely on our sympathetic neighbours.

Interesting to refer to our voting no as 'poking nearly every government in Europe in the eye'. This idea of treating the leaders of europe like some sort of big bad wolf who must be appeased is very telling. I'd rather not indulge such megalomania though.

Ciks

wouldn’t worry too much about the effect of a Yes or No vote on the number of tourists visiting Ireland, it’s not as if the lakes of Killarney, the Cliffs of Moher, the Aran Islands & Newgrange are going to pack their bags and move to China or eastern Europe in the case of a No vote:-) … just wish I could be as certain about the Irish based multinationals, Intel, Microsoft, HP, Pfizer, Google, Yahoo, Apple etc etc.

Martin.

Scofflaw · 02-08-2009 03:23AM

realcam wrote: »

I don't need to do anything. I'm not going to write an essay on political theory here. Read summaries on Rousseau or Montesquieu.
I'm saying proper separation of powers, proper controls of the executive authority by the legislative, independent judiciary. The cornerstones of a modern democracy to name just a few. All very much watered down in what's shaping up in Europe.

That assumes, though, that "what's shaping up in Europe" is a federal state. Europe can't become a federal state without a lot of changes - not least, that we would all have to agree to abolish our national constitutions (again, see the German judgement) - and a huge sea-change in public attitudes. Personally, I think the checks available in the EU are acceptable for what the EU does, although Lisbon would undoubtedly improve them. I wouldn't regard them as anywhere near acceptable for a federal state, but then I would strongly oppose a federal European state anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach · 02-08-2009 03:51AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

That assumes, though, that "what's shaping up in Europe" is a federal state. Europe can't become a federal state without a lot of changes - not least, that we would all have to agree to abolish our national constitutions (again, see the German judgement) - and a huge sea-change in public attitudes. Personally, I think the checks available in the EU are acceptable for what the EU does, although Lisbon would undoubtedly improve them. I wouldn't regard them as anywhere near acceptable for a federal state, but then I would strongly oppose a federal European state anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Then why did former Belgian PM and current ALDE group leader in the European Parliament say of the EU Constitution, which contains 95% of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, that:

Guy Verhofstadt,then Belgian PM, 2004 wrote:

The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.

Scofflaw · 02-08-2009 04:05AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Then why did former Belgian PM and current ALDE group leader in the European Parliament say of the EU Constitution, which contains 95% of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, that:

I have no idea, not being privy to the man's thoughts - and, equally importantly, neither do you.

There's a good deal too much reliance being placed by newer posters on videos and quotations. This is a discussion forum - don't use arguments that you can't stand over, and other posters can't discuss. The one above is a good example of the breed, because in the absence of any further explanation from Mr Verhofstadt, we have no idea why he made the remark he made. Further, we don't even know the context of the remark. If he had just finished explaining that by "a federal Europe" he meant a Europe in which the citizens had directly as much power as possible, then his remark means one thing. If he had just finished explaining that by "a federal Europe" he meant a totally integrated superstate, then his remark means another. Shorn of context and explanation, his remark means nothing at all.

One of the problems with the "Lisbon debate" in the public arena was that it was dominated by soundbites and slogans. I see no reason why that should be replicated here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI · 02-08-2009 10:23AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Then why did former Belgian PM and current ALDE group leader in the European Parliament say of the EU Constitution, which contains 95% of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, that:

Hang on...

Does Lisbon contain 95% of the Constitution, or did the Constitution contain 95% of Lisbon? Those are two very different claims. Also I've heard a 90% figure bandied about.

I move that this unsubstantiated figure be no longer accepted without burden of scientific proof on the claimant. It should be easy (if time consuming) to go through the text of Lisbon and the Constitution and measure sentence by sentence what appears in both, what appears in only the Constitution, and what appears in only Lisbon.

Merely quoting someone else doesn't count.

This will provide a figure as to how much of the Constitution is in Lisbon, and vice versa, then maybe we can talk about it.

Also many of the arguments, even taking the 95% figure as somewhat valid (or at least believed, uncritically, by the claimant), rely on the Constitution being equal to Lisbon (i.e. France & Holland voted, but were ignored).

This is actually stating that 95 = 100, which is so false as to not even require a mathematical proof, and immediately invalidates the argument without any further examination being necessary.

This nonsense has gone on too long.

ei.sdraob · 02-08-2009 10:35AM

if someone can provide me the textbody of both in plain text i (or anyone else for that matter) could run a svn compare / text diff

but I agree alot of claims being made and not being backed up, which i will not stand for this time around

this reminds me of last year when the Yes side was backed against the wall and bombarded with slogans,lies and twisted facts and was forced to defend and debunk every crazy notion

its happening again, as can be seen in this forum, some new member

would pop along out of the thin blue start a thread with a provocative title or same copied and pasted posts, then some members would patiently go thru the posts and explain why its wrong, with no debate ensuing but just more slogans

sigh, sorry i am a bit disillusioned this morning, i was about to answer to a few threads here but then stopped myself as i could smell a troll (im not sure if im allowed to say what i just did, but there it goes, sorry)

View · 02-08-2009 11:18AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Then why did former Belgian PM and current ALDE group leader in the European Parliament say of the EU Constitution, which contains 95% of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, that:

If you are going to post links then at least link to sources that quote the person in full. A claim by the National Platform that someone said something doesn't mean that they said it.

It would also help if when referring to a person's "quotation" that you could actually refer to the correct "quotation" that they supposedly said...

Ciks · 02-08-2009 11:45AM

Martin 2 wrote: »

Ciks

wouldn’t worry too much about the effect of a Yes or No vote on the number of tourists visiting Ireland, it’s not as if the lakes of Killarney, the Cliffs of Moher, the Aran Islands & Newgrange are going to pack their bags and move to China or eastern Europe in the case of a No vote:-) … just wish I could be as certain about the Irish based multinationals, Intel, Microsoft, HP, Pfizer, Google, Yahoo, Apple etc etc.

Martin.

You misunderstand Martin, it was not by intention to suggest that tourism would drop depending on our vote. My comment was on the implication made by Scofflaw, (and we can't pretend that the Lisbon treaty would make the aforementioned companies hang around when there's cheaper labour to be had elsewhere, after all, they aren't irish companies and they did move here when labour was relatively cheap, the pattern continues regardless...)

FutureTaoiseach · 02-08-2009 12:33PM

View wrote: »

If you are going to post links then at least link to sources that quote the person in full. A claim by the National Platform that someone said something doesn't mean that they said it.

It would also help if when referring to a person's "quotation" that you could actually refer to the correct "quotation" that they supposedly said...

Are you accusing them of lying? They said it. Fact.

FutureTaoiseach · 02-08-2009 12:36PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hang on...

Does Lisbon contain 95% of the Constitution, or did the Constitution contain 95% of Lisbon? Those are two very different claims. Also I've heard a 90% figure bandied about.

I move that this unsubstantiated figure be no longer accepted without burden of scientific proof on the claimant. It should be easy (if time consuming) to go through the text of Lisbon and the Constitution and measure sentence by sentence what appears in both, what appears in only the Constitution, and what appears in only Lisbon.

Merely quoting someone else doesn't count.

This will provide a figure as to how much of the Constitution is in Lisbon, and vice versa, then maybe we can talk about it.

Also many of the arguments, even taking the 95% figure as somewhat valid (or at least believed, uncritically, by the claimant), rely on the Constitution being equal to Lisbon (i.e. France & Holland voted, but were ignored).

This is actually stating that 95 = 100, which is so false as to not even require a mathematical proof, and immediately invalidates the argument without any further examination being necessary.

This nonsense has gone on too long.

Oh come off it. Everyone in the ruling-classes of Europe has let the cat out of the bag with respect to Lisbon being 90-5% the same in terms of provisions as the EU Constitution. But if you insist on proof, instead of trying to close down debate, read this comprehensive comparison of the EU Constitution and Lisbon. The differences are minute.

Martin 2 · 02-08-2009 01:03PM

Ciks wrote: »

You misunderstand Martin, it was not by intention to suggest that tourism would drop depending on our vote. My comment was on the implication made by Scofflaw, (and we can't pretend that the Lisbon treaty would make the aforementioned companies hang around when there's cheaper labour to be had elsewhere, after all, they aren't irish companies and they did move here when labour was relatively cheap, the pattern continues regardless...)

Hi Ciks,
I’m certainly not pretending that a Yes vote is a panacea for our economic ills or that it will make multinationals stay, there are many other factors that have to be tackled such as competitivness, skills availability etc. as I said before, << Intel and others have said that a No "will affect how Ireland continues to be perceived internationally" and that Ireland would be "cutting itself adrift from Europe". These are perceptions but in business perception is often reality. So on the balance sheet of whether to stay in Ireland or to leave a Yes goes firmly on the stay side along with corporate tax and market access and a No on the leave side along with excessive costs.>>

“they aren't irish companies”, correct but the jobs they create (>200,000 direct + indirect) are and the euros they earn for the Irish economy are so we should do all we can to help them stay here… at the moment there is no alternative, I know this because I work in the ICT sector, I worked in MNC’s, in start-ups and with start-ups and we have along way to go before we have our own Intels, Microsofts and Pfizers… there is nothing to fill the gap at the moment.

Ciks, before you decide on whether to vote yes or no look at the economic implications of your vote and how it might affect the country, your friends and family… I don't mean to sound preachy but I think it's really important at the moment.

Here is some reading material related to the multinationals:

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

Martin.

sink · 02-08-2009 01:03PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if someone can provide me the textbody of both in plain text i (or anyone else for that matter) could run a svn compare / text diff

I don't think that will work as the two documents are worded quiet differently in sections that have similar results so it won't by accurate. But I have looked through the difference between the two (there was a pdf but I can't find it now) and the 95% claim is accurate.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

this reminds me of last year when the Yes side was backed against the wall and bombarded with slogans,lies and twisted facts and was forced to defend and debunk every crazy notion

its happening again, as can be seen in this forum, some new member would pop along out of the thin blue start a thread with a provocative title or same copied and pasted posts, then some members would patiently go thru the posts and explain why its wrong, with no debate ensuing but just more slogans

sigh, sorry i am a bit disillusioned this morning, i was about to answer to a few threads here but then stopped myself as i could smell a troll (im not sure if im allowed to say what i just did, but there it goes, sorry)

I know exactly how you feel. Last time round I was one of the most prolific posters here, confronting every no claim that was posted but it was like trying to hold back the tide and it was frankly depressing. I've taken a different tact this time round. I'm not going to spend all day debunking no claims. I'm going to provide my thoughts and analysis of the treaty and try to only post when I can provide new insight.

Ciks · 02-08-2009 01:58PM

Martin 2 wrote: »

Hi Ciks,
I’m certainly not pretending that a Yes vote is a panacea for our economic ills or that it will make multinationals stay, there are many other factors that have to be tackled such as competitivness, skills availability etc. as I said before, << Intel and others have said that a No "will affect how Ireland continues to be perceived internationally" and that Ireland would be "cutting itself adrift from Europe". These are perceptions but in business perception is often reality. So on the balance sheet of whether to stay in Ireland or to leave a Yes goes firmly on the stay side along with corporate tax and market access and a No on the leave side along with excessive costs.>>

“they aren't irish companies”, correct but the jobs they create (>200,000 direct + indirect) are and the euros they earn for the Irish economy are so we should do all we can to help them stay here… at the moment there is no alternative, I know this because I work in the ICT sector, I worked in MNC’s, in start-ups and with start-ups and we have along way to go before we have our own Intels, Microsofts and Pfizers… there is nothing to fill the gap at the moment.

Ciks, before you decide on whether to vote yes or no look at the economic implications of your vote and how it might affect the country, your friends and family… I don't mean to sound preachy but I think it's really important at the moment.

Here is some reading material related to the multinationals:

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

Martin.

I am realistic, it is not my intention to try and convert people, nor yours I hope. Nor do I expect you to understand my cynicism. I don't know how this recession has affected you but I do know my own situation and that the government has failed me, my friends and my family already. I'm not going to list the reasons (we'd be here a long time if I did, believe you me) and it's not stubborness that influences my decisions, as many seem to think of 'no'ers. Do you think i don't want to see this country regain some of it's stability? No voters are not exactly trying to cut their noses off to spite their face, I do not believe that this treaty will help. And you must admit that the power's disrespect for the first outcome and our being bullied into having to vote a second time does not seem like the prelude to reclaiming greatness.
It depresses me even thinking about it. (And some suggested reading material for you would be a little question regarding taxes in this month's Focus magazine. Another fence our dear politicians have fallen at....)

Scofflaw · 02-08-2009 03:31PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Oh come off it. Everyone in the ruling-classes of Europe has let the cat out of the bag with respect to Lisbon being 90-5% the same in terms of provisions as the EU Constitution. But if you insist on proof, instead of trying to close down debate, read this comprehensive comparison of the EU Constitution and Lisbon. The differences are minute.

Clever document - very Bonde. Misses out the entirety of the "orange/yellow card" system that the Dutch negotiated. Presumably that's why he doesn't cover the Protocols and Declarations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan · 02-08-2009 06:14PM

Ciks wrote: »

I am realistic, it is not my intention to try and convert people, nor yours I hope. Nor do I expect you to understand my cynicism. I don't know how this recession has affected you but I do know my own situation and that the government has failed me, my friends and my family already. I'm not going to list the reasons (we'd be here a long time if I did, believe you me) and it's not stubborness that influences my decisions, as many seem to think of 'no'ers.

I understand where you are coming from but I think you are looking at things through a haze of anger and cynicism. The government has failed you, mainly through taking short term decisions to maximise short term popularity, and giving no care to what would happen down the road. However it does not necessarily translate that Lisbon is a bad deal. This is what I call enemy-friend syndrome. The government is your enemy, Lisbon is the government's friend, Lisbon must be your enemy. Not so, even a poor government can make some good choices, and why trust them anyhow, trust the opposition, trust practically every leader/economist/person of influence in Ireland and the EU.

Ciks wrote: »

Do you think i don't want to see this country regain some of it's stability? No voters are not exactly trying to cut their noses off to spite their face, I do not believe that this treaty will help.

I think this treaty will help... or at least if it is implemented there will be stability and progress. If it fails there will definitely be instability, doubt and a lack of direction in Europe. That has to be bad. As others have said the perception will be that Ireland does not want the same level of integration that the other states do, that we are drifting away from the centre.

Ciks wrote: »

And you must admit that the power's disrespect for the first outcome and our being bullied into having to vote a second time does not seem like the prelude to reclaiming greatness.

Again I understand where you are coming from. From a certain viewpoint I can see how it looks this way. However from my viewpoint we are not being bullied into a second vote. We are doing it because almost all our political leaders think it is really a good deal and it's the way we want Europe to be managed. If it fails something else will be developed, and there's no guarantee that it will be better. It might be worse.

Ciks wrote: »

It depresses me even thinking about it. (And some suggested reading material for you would be a little question regarding taxes in this month's Focus magazine. Another fence our dear politicians have fallen at....)

Would you like to expand on that?

Ix.

View · 02-08-2009 08:25PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Are you accusing them of lying? They said it. Fact.

Well, if it is a fact then you should have no problem providing a direct link to the article or news report in which they said it, right?

That way everyone could see the original article in which they said it.

Since the National Platform don't provide links to the original articles - merely out of context "quotations" - which may or not be true, it would appear they have little confidence in letting people read the original articles/quotations for themselves.

PS Let you think I am being overly cynical, a certain No campaigner associated with PANA had a wonderful 3-line "quote" supposedly from another European website/paper in an article in the Irish Times a few months back. Problem was when you looked at the actual quote from the European website/paper the first third of the "quotation" in the Irish Times was totally different to what the "quoted" official actually said. Nice concidence, right?

Ciks · 02-08-2009 08:29PM

ixtlan wrote: »

Would you like to expand on that?

Ix.

No-ho! Buy Focus, its so worth it (I swear I don't work for them :P)

ixtlan wrote: »

I think this treaty will help... or at least if it is implemented there will be stability and progress. If it fails there will definitely be instability, doubt and a lack of direction in Europe. Ix.

See that just means they've gotten to you...

tlev · 02-08-2009 11:14PM

Ciks wrote: »

No-ho! Buy Focus, its so worth it (I swear I don't work for them :P)

See that just means they've gotten to you...

Who's gotten to who? That sounds like its some kind of brainwashing conspiracy. Currently things are pretty unstable without the need for extra disagreement between EU nations. Investor and indeed consumer confidence is based on stability, the road to recovery is built on stability. Now Lisbon won't magically bring us out of the recession but it really wouldn't hurt our international reputation one bit if we actually showed people that Ireland can play nice too. At the same time I'm not saying that the earth will open up and a rain of fire will fall on Ireland if No is voted in but it doesn't seem pragmatic that we cast doubt on the stability of Ireland within the EU.

Ciks · 02-08-2009 11:41PM

Ssh! Calm down, I can practically see you hunched over the keyboard with steam coming from your ears. It was a JOKE.

K-9 · 02-08-2009 11:51PM

Ciks wrote: »

Ssh! Calm down, I can practically see you hunched over the keyboard with steam coming from your ears. It was a JOKE.

It's a fair point though.We've had a crap Govt. here, backed by greed and the opposition was no better.

Other European countries have coped better with the global recession, Govts. that negotiated Lisbon. Even a rant at the Govt. makes no sense either as the opposition wants a yes too. I've seen the logic that voting no will kick out FF being used and this seems to be the new "if you don't understand it, vote No" sound byte.

There will be no 3rd vote. A second one is unpopular enough.

FutureTaoiseach · 03-08-2009 12:57PM

View wrote: »

Well, if it is a fact then you should have no problem providing a direct link to the article or news report in which they said it, right?

That way everyone could see the original article in which they said it.

Since the National Platform don't provide links to the original articles - merely out of context "quotations" - which may or not be true, it would appear they have little confidence in letting people read the original articles/quotations for themselves.

PS Let you think I am being overly cynical, a certain No campaigner associated with PANA had a wonderful 3-line "quote" supposedly from another European website/paper in an article in the Irish Times a few months back. Problem was when you looked at the actual quote from the European website/paper the first third of the "quotation" in the Irish Times was totally different to what the "quoted" official actually said. Nice concidence, right?

In several of the quotes they provide the exact issue of the relevant newspaper in which the relevant politicians were quoted. I am going to post direct links to some of the quotes presently. You can Google the others yourself. I gave the sources and even the editions of newspapers they appeared in (where applicable). You don't need to be spoonfed.Valery Giscard d'Estaing:

Valery Giscard d'Estaing wrote:

The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.

Dermot Ahern:

Dermot Ahern wrote:

The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution

Bertie Ahern:

Bertie Ahern wrote:

"I think the way I left this three years ago was far better. I'm not going to change my mind on that and I think all the changes that we've made are all changes for the worse but thankfully they haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there."

Guy Verhofstadt:

Guy Verhofstadt wrote:

The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.

Scofflaw · 03-08-2009 06:49PM

Alas, you haven't given the sources or contexts of the quotes. What you've given are newspaper articles or letters (!) where those quotes are used. That is of no more use establishing the context of the quote than your use of the quote in a post.

In general, journalists are not by any stretch of the imagination to be considered reliable or authoritative sources.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 04-08-2009 10:47AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I gave the sources and even the editions of newspapers they appeared in (where applicable).

Actually, you didn't - in the post I initially replied to you said:

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Then why did former Belgian PM and current ALDE group leader in the European Parliament say of the EU Constitution, which contains 95% of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, that:

Originally Posted by Guy Verhofstadt
The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.

The "source" you used in that case being the National Platform website.

You see, I'd actually like to see what Guy Verhofstadt said in full. Belgium after all is a federal constitutional monarchy, so it would be reasonable to expect him to have a good grasp of what a federal state looks like or should look like.

Consequently - even allowing for the hyperbole all politicans are prone to and/or drunkness on his part - it would appear suprising for him to claim that the EU either post-Lisbon (or post-Nice) could be construed as meeting even the (minimistic) criteria of a highly decentralised federal state, such as Switzerland.

Moreover, his opinion would appear to be directly at odds with that of the Constitutional Court of another Federal State - Germany - where the judges in Karlsruhe clearly ruled that Lisbon does not transform the EU into a federal state.

So, if you do have a direct link to an article/speech by him in which he made this claim, I am sure we'd all like to see it.

Morgans · 04-08-2009 10:56AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alas, you haven't given the sources or contexts of the quotes. What you've given are newspaper articles or letters (!) where those quotes are used. That is of no more use establishing the context of the quote than your use of the quote in a post.

In general, journalists are not by any stretch of the imagination to be considered reliable or authoritative sources.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The idea that all of these are out of context is equally wrong. Not sure why none of them can be taken at face value.

P. Breathnach · 04-08-2009 11:26AM

Morgans wrote: »

The idea that all of these are out of context is equally wrong.

No. It is a simple matter of fact.

Not sure why none of them can be taken at face value.

Why should they be, before proper examination of the context?

Chances are that, if you work hard enough at it, you can find a single utterance from anybody which could be used in support of a view that the person actually disagrees with.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 04-08-2009 11:32AM

Morgans wrote: »

all of these are out of context... none of them can be taken at face value.

:pac:

Morgans · 04-08-2009 11:34AM

Yeah, there is no intelligent reason for anyone not being 100% behind the Yes campaign to some. We had this before with McCreevy's statements a month or so ago. With those who support a Yes vote automatically blaming misquoting journalists, to attcking McCreevy's credentials etc - sure, what would he know.

I also have a serious problem with the other canard trotted out, about the French have democratically reversed their beliefs on Lisbon by voting in Sarkozy.

Sure, if the greens pulled out of govt in the morning it is a long long shot that Gerry Adams would be elected Taoiseach. If Cowan, Kenny, Gilmore, Gormley all said that if elected they would ratify Lisbon without a referendum (Constitution be damned) it is still likely that the core votes of each party would defeat SF.

As the OP said, "Democracy me b0llix". Whatever gets the job done.

Democracy my B0lllox!!!

Comments