FF gives reasons to vote YES

Thanks for that Aragon. Unfortunately, Joe Noonan has opposed every EU treaty on more or less the same basis, with virtually the same set of claims - although his claims have probably got slightly less wild over time - back in 1992, opposing the Maastricht Treaty, he claimed in the Irish Times that Maastricht's EU citizenship provisions would lead to conscription into an EU army.The intervening 15 years have signally failed to see that happening - instead, EU citizenship has led on to rights rather than conscription.

Even his "legal analysis" of Lisbon, offered above, bears striking similarities to his "legal analysis" of Nice - available here. What use is a boilerplate analysis that simply claims the same thing about every single Treaty?

cactus flower wrote:

As EVM described it as "hysterical", I think you were knocking at an open door

I know, but I'm allergic now!

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

As EVM described it as "hysterical", I think you were knocking at an open door

I know, but I'm allergic now!

I can understand why you're allergic at this stage Ibis.
I am also thankful that you are managing to keep your head, while all around, people are losing theirs.
And thanks for those replies.

Quote :

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may
be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all
persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to
the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive
persons, they are vexations to the spirit....
Max Ehrmann c.1920

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

As EVM described it as "hysterical", I think you were knocking at an open door

I know, but I'm allergic now!

I can understand why you're allergic at this stage Ibis.
I am also thankful that you are managing to keep your head, while all around, people are losing theirs.
And thanks for those replies.

Quote :

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may
be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all
persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to
the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive
persons, they are vexations to the spirit....
Max Ehrmann c.1920

I wrote a paraphrase of that for RockofCashel:

Go placidly amidst the noise and haste
and remember what use there may be in lying
As far as possible without getting caught,
be on "good terms" with all voters

Speak your lies quietly and clearly; and listen to others;
even the dull and ignorant, for they too have useful ammunition
Avoid smart and well-read persons,
they are vexatious to the message

Very Good.

ibis wrote:

Thanks for that Aragon. Unfortunately, Joe Noonan has opposed every EU treaty on more or less the same basis, with virtually the same set of claims - although his claims have probably got slightly less wild over time - back in 1992, opposing the Maastricht Treaty, he claimed in the Irish Times that Maastricht's EU citizenship provisions would lead to conscription into an EU army.The intervening 15 years have signally failed to see that happening - instead, EU citizenship has led on to rights rather than conscription.

Even his "legal analysis" of Lisbon, offered above, bears striking similarities to his "legal analysis" of Nice - available here. What use is a boilerplate analysis that simply claims the same thing about every single Treaty?

For a guy who criticises the arguments of people who don't share your view Ibis, you don't pay sufficient attention to the quality or merits or your own. You accuse others of the things you are most guilty of yourself. That lot is really just more invective minus the swearing which we saw yesterday - a personal attack on a professional who would leave you looking pretty foolish in a face to face, legal debate, I strongly suspect. At least, Noonan has persuaded the Supreme Court and other legal bodies of the worth of his opinions. But of course you must be greatly superior to anyone capable of such a trifling achievement. Irish people owe him a lot.

You don't substantiate a single one of your claims. If you seriously think that the passage of a mere 15 years without the materialisation of what Joe Noonan has rightly feared may be on the agenda is any sort of proof that it is not a part of the agenda, then you must be more seriously unaware of how the EU works - and the pace at which it works - than I thought. Moreover, if the EU has backed off overt militarisation in the interim it is almost certainly because of Joe Noonan and others like him around the EU who have made the undemocratic institutions over there aware that they are not going to swing these things past people as easily as they would like. You hail the absence of the thing Noonan opposed so forcefully and effectively and fail to see that it is precisely because of his opposition that things have been deterred or delayed.

Of course the ruling in the Crotty case which Noonan brought to a victory for Irish democracy, such as is left of it, is very much in the sights of the Lisbon Treaty which will ensure that this constiutional safeguard is rendered worthless in future - that the irritating Irish and their adherence to irritating democratic processes are dealt with.

Shrug. Noonan's arguments are simply opinions on what might happen if certain clauses are interpreted one way as opposed to another. Their reliability depends on how likely those interpretations are, not on whether they are possible.

That means Joe is essentially making predictions - and 15 years of being wrong about the same things is a non-trivial guide to Joe's probable performance on this occasion too.

ibis wrote:

Shrug. Noonan's arguments are simply opinions on what might happen if certain clauses are interpreted one way as opposed to another. Their reliability depends on how likely those interpretations are, not on whether they are possible.

That means Joe is essentially making predictions - and 15 years of being wrong about the same things is a non-trivial guide to Joe's probable performance on this occasion too.

And that opinion, Ibis, represents a profound misunderstanding about the nature of both international and supranational law. It also ignores the terms of the legislation you are championing - specifically the obligation which the treaty imposes on states to increase their spending on military capability for the EU. But you won't deal with that - you'll swear at me or make personal attacks on people like Noonan instead.

Aragon wrote:

ibis wrote:

Shrug. Noonan's arguments are simply opinions on what might happen if certain clauses are interpreted one way as opposed to another. Their reliability depends on how likely those interpretations are, not on whether they are possible.

That means Joe is essentially making predictions - and 15 years of being wrong about the same things is a non-trivial guide to Joe's probable performance on this occasion too.

And that opinion, Ibis, represents a profound misunderstanding about the nature of both international and supranational law. It also ignores the terms of the legislation you are championing - specifically the obligation which the treaty imposes on states to increase their spending on military capability for the EU. But you won't deal with that - you'll swear at me or make personal attacks on people like Noonan instead.

Hmm. I see - I'm too thick to understand, so I should just be quiet while the experts speak?

I've neither sworn at you nor made a personal attack on Joe. I have commented on his track record of predicting which interpretations of law will actually made. So far, he's been wrong all along.

The problem, I think, is that you'e not addressing the argument as to whether there should be an EU foreign or defence policy in the first place. Instead you simply assume it's a bad thing and try and make it sound scary - begging the question. I can see why you might not want to do so, of course, since the majority of Irish citizens think there ought to be - 61% in favour, 29% opposed.