Pages: 1 2

 

2008-05-27 03:03:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

While I understand your position, it's a bit much to say that because the people aren't voting on it, that it's not democratic. You elected the representatives who will vote on it. That is democratic, also.
Well, technically not, but then people tend to igore technicalities so as not to bluster on for too long.
So electing representatives is not democratic? Since when?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Sounds like the people need to let those voting how they feel about it. If they don't follow their constituents' wishes, then they lose their jobs at the next election to someone who will.
Which only works if there's an alternative for the people.  Further, they're still bound by the treaty.
But the populace--if it's important enough to them--could elect a body that will withdraw from the treaty.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-27 03:28:16
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

While I understand your position, it's a bit much to say that because the people aren't voting on it, that it's not democratic. You elected the representatives who will vote on it. That is democratic, also.
Well, technically not, but then people tend to igore technicalities so as not to bluster on for too long.
So electing representatives is not democratic? Since when?
Since it's actually voting on everything.  Electing representatives is just a compromise to avoid going the way of the Athenians.

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Sounds like the people need to let those voting how they feel about it. If they don't follow their constituents' wishes, then they lose their jobs at the next election to someone who will.
Which only works if there's an alternative for the people.  Further, they're still bound by the treaty.
But the populace--if it's important enough to them--could elect a body that will withdraw from the treaty.
As I just said this assumes such a body exists, and still leaves them having to deal with the repercussions of withdrawing from a treaty.
2008-05-27 03:56:49
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6942|Πάϊ

FEOS wrote:

While I understand your position, it's a bit much to say that because the people aren't voting on it, that it's not democratic. You elected the representatives who will vote on it. That is democratic, also.

Sounds like the people need to let those voting how they feel about it. If they don't follow their constituents' wishes, then they lose their jobs at the next election to someone who will.
The next election solution is not a good one imo. The people should be able to guide their representatives at any given time. Waiting four years to vote someone out because of some bad decision is not enough. Nor is it clear enough why. I mean, a government will be changed for a number of reasons at the end of their term.
But as in this case for example, it needs to be made clear to them that they are acting against the will of the people. The Lisbon Treaty seems good enough a reason for any politician to be removed from their position should his/her opinion be at odds with that of the populace.

I generally don't see why the people should be allowed to speak once every 4 years. This is not true democracy. I say let the people decide the future of Europe, not some sellout cunt.
ƒ³
2008-05-27 04:49:17
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7263|Cologne, Germany

direct democracy ( the populace deciding on about almost everything in a referendum ) was a success in athens and other greek polis', because the actual number of decisions and their complexities allowed for it.

Also, the population of athens that were allowed to cast votes ( women couldn't vote, and neither could slaves ) was actually quite small. So small, in fact, that by today's standards, those weren't even democratic decisions...

Today, the issues are much more complex and the population is much bigger. Some western nations still have such referendums, but on a very limited basis, for the reasons I mentioned.
No one, for example, would hold referendums on tax policies, or changes in the social security systems. Those issues are just too complicated, and carry too many ramnifications, to let the average joe decide on them.
Democracy has its limitations, and those limitations start where the average citizen is simply not able to make a qualified decision about the topic at hand.

Would I feel confident if I was asked to make a decision on the Lisbon treaty today ? Hell no. It would take me weeks, if not months to work myself through the treaty text, and since I have no experience in these matters, even then there is little chance I'd be able to grasp the implications in its entirety.
All of that, while I would still have to work my regular job ? Come on, that's just not feasible.
We elect representatives because it is the best compromise between a direct democracy and a dictatorship.

To me, it's a matter of principle. I mean, why elect representatives in the first place, when you don't trust them anyway, and take their voting power away through referendums ?

I realize that a lot of ordinary people think that their elected representatives have lost touch with them, that they do not understand what the people really want, and that they only follow the instructions of a small political and economic elite anyway. Some of that is true, especially with career politicians.
But are more referendums really the answer ? just because they are the "people", are they really more qualified to make decisions on these matters ? Every four years is a good compromise, I'd say.
2008-05-27 05:38:17
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250
I'm not advocating true democracy, just pointing out that what we have is more a hybrid of democracy and monarchy
2008-05-27 05:44:39
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7072

FEOS wrote:

While I understand your position, it's a bit much to say that because the people aren't voting on it, that it's not democratic. You elected the representatives who will vote on it. That is democratic, also.
When the elected officials are voting for essentially the same thing that was rejected by voters previously, it seems somewhat less democratic.
2008-05-27 09:03:37
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6942|Πάϊ

B.Schuss wrote:

direct democracy ( the populace deciding on about almost everything in a referendum ) was a success in athens and other greek polis', because the actual number of decisions and their complexities allowed for it.

Also, the population of athens that were allowed to cast votes ( women couldn't vote, and neither could slaves ) was actually quite small. So small, in fact, that by today's standards, those weren't even democratic decisions...

Today, the issues are much more complex and the population is much bigger. Some western nations still have such referendums, but on a very limited basis, for the reasons I mentioned.
No one, for example, would hold referendums on tax policies, or changes in the social security systems. Those issues are just too complicated, and carry too many ramnifications, to let the average joe decide on them.
Democracy has its limitations, and those limitations start where the average citizen is simply not able to make a qualified decision about the topic at hand.

Would I feel confident if I was asked to make a decision on the Lisbon treaty today ? Hell no. It would take me weeks, if not months to work myself through the treaty text, and since I have no experience in these matters, even then there is little chance I'd be able to grasp the implications in its entirety.
All of that, while I would still have to work my regular job ? Come on, that's just not feasible.
We elect representatives because it is the best compromise between a direct democracy and a dictatorship.

To me, it's a matter of principle. I mean, why elect representatives in the first place, when you don't trust them anyway, and take their voting power away through referendums ?

I realize that a lot of ordinary people think that their elected representatives have lost touch with them, that they do not understand what the people really want, and that they only follow the instructions of a small political and economic elite anyway. Some of that is true, especially with career politicians.
But are more referendums really the answer ? just because they are the "people", are they really more qualified to make decisions on these matters ? Every four years is a good compromise, I'd say.
I'm sure the number of matters and their complexity were the same. I don't see how the complexity of matters (or their number) might change between different societies tbh...

I agree however that the number of people involved is the only problem we face today. Of course, if we wanted we could easily find a solution for that as well, but that is a different subject.

I understand that the use of referendums can only be limited for practical reasons, yet I find that issues like social security should be decided in that way.

Anyway, the problem is that people wouldn't know what to vote for, even if they were given the chance. But take this case for example. Yes, it is quite a large subject, and yes one needs to study it extensively to obtain a solid view of things. But. The basics, an outline, could, if presented to the people, empower them to make the right decisions.

As for the highlighted part, we simply don't care whether the people are qualified or not. It is their decision to make, regardless. Not to mention that it is the job of those appointed to govern to do whatever actions are necessary so that the people be qualified to decide their fate.
Hiding ignorance behind politicians is definitely not the answer.

Also, if we consider the people to be incapable of making decisions for themselves, on what basis do we allow them to choose who governs them?
Every four years they will be making the wrong decisions!

Last edited by oug (2008-05-27 09:04:38)

ƒ³
2008-05-27 15:49:29
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6713|Éire
I've finally started researching the political hot potato that is the Lisbon Treaty and I have to say that so far I'm leaning towards the 'No' camp. There are aspects that seem very positive, like the 'Citizen's Initiative' proposal whereby any issue can be tabled for discussion if a petition of at least one million names can be obtained, but it seems to be too focused towards the centralisation of power into the hands of the few.

The idea of having no representative in the European commission for 5 years out of every 15 just seems plain dangerous to me. It also seems to be very vague as to whether or not our powers of veto on certain issues will remain or not...there was a debate on TV tonight where opposing politicians had two entirely different interpretations of this particular issue, both based on their readings of the treaty itself!

I do not want to see a more 'American-esque' Europe where important decisions can be made quicker and with less input from the voting public. It was also suggested on the debate show on TV tonight, by a former Irish representative in Europe, that elements in the treaty relating to defence and military spending have been shaped by the pressures of the military lobby in Europe...the idea of a military lobby is something many Irish people won't be very aware of on account of our neutrality.

I also dislike the idea of the new role being introduced, that of High Commissioner of defence and foreign policy...especially when names like Tony Blair have been bandied around for it. As Cam has mentioned earlier, why should Ireland embrace the idea of sharing the same foreign policy as a nation that still occupies 6 of its counties and is still currently embroiled in a war of dubious legality? What are we planning for...are we going to war with someone in the near future? The real threat of terrorism that we all face today will not be effectively tackled with arms race military tactics...that kind of mindset is only good for breeding foreign policy like that seen in the US and Russia.
2008-05-27 17:34:36
imortal
Member
+240|7087|Austin, TX

CameronPoe wrote:

Well my European brethren the time is almost upon the Irish to decide the fate of the EU. On the 12th of June my fellow countrymen and I will be voting on whether to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. It seems that democracy is dead in the rest of Europe: we are the only nation being afforded the right to make our own decision on whether or not this treaty should be ratified. Every single other country in Europe is ratifying the treaty at parliamentary level and the people are not being consulted - a treaty which is almost a carbon copy of the 'EU Constitution' rejected by the people of France and Holland in referendums there.

Valerie Giscard D'Estaing:

"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."
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

If this is not a constitution then why are the people of Ireland being asked to approve an amendment of our constitution???

The people of Europe are being hoodwinked. It is our duty here in Ireland to stop this going ahead. I do not want Europe to become a European 'US'. I am content with the loose association member states now have and want no further integration, no further centralisation of power and no further homogenisation of Europe and her cultures. I do not want a cut-throat Europe based on 'undistorted competition'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eig … of_Ireland
http://www.libertas.org/

Fellow Europeans, what are your thoughts on this treaty? How would you feel if Ireland stopped the whole thing in its tracks?
Good luck in your fight Poe.  We lost that one here in the US after our Civil War.  It would be a shame to see the nations of Europe reduced to the same importance as a state here in the US (ever noticed that they are referred to as 'states,' which is another name for an independant nation?).
2008-05-27 17:47:54
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:


Well, technically not, but then people tend to igore technicalities so as not to bluster on for too long.
So electing representatives is not democratic? Since when?
Since it's actually voting on everything.  Electing representatives is just a compromise to avoid going the way of the Athenians.
It's still democracy. Representative democracy.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Which only works if there's an alternative for the people.  Further, they're still bound by the treaty.
But the populace--if it's important enough to them--could elect a body that will withdraw from the treaty.
As I just said this assumes such a body exists, and still leaves them having to deal with the repercussions of withdrawing from a treaty.
As I just said the body will exist when the people make it a critical enough issue for those running for office to make it a central part of their respective platforms. If the treaty is viewed as negative by the people, then any repercussions should be of lesser concern than staying in the treaty. Regardless, the cost/benefit analysis must be done to justify either action (joining or pulling out of the treaty).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-28 02:46:45
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire wrote:

Since it's actually voting on everything.  Electing representatives is just a compromise to avoid going the way of the Athenians.
It's still democracy. Representative democracy.
Which is a term for a form of government that isn't a democracy.

FEOS wrote:

As I just said the body will exist when the people make it a critical enough issue for those running for office to make it a central part of their respective platforms.
Not necessarily.  If nobody agrees to argue about it, the people won't see themselves as having  choice.

FEOS wrote:

If the treaty is viewed as negative by the people, then any repercussions should be of lesser concern than staying in the treaty.
But it doesn't change the fact that the nation is stuck with the consequences of a treaty they didn't want to join in the first place.

FEOS wrote:

Regardless, the cost/benefit analysis must be done to justify either action (joining or pulling out of the treaty).
And the people believe it shouldn't be done.
2008-05-28 04:06:25
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6990|NYC / Hamburg

B.Schuss wrote:

direct democracy ( the populace deciding on about almost everything in a referendum ) was a success in athens and other greek polis', because the actual number of decisions and their complexities allowed for it.

Also, the population of athens that were allowed to cast votes ( women couldn't vote, and neither could slaves ) was actually quite small. So small, in fact, that by today's standards, those weren't even democratic decisions...

Today, the issues are much more complex and the population is much bigger. Some western nations still have such referendums, but on a very limited basis, for the reasons I mentioned.
No one, for example, would hold referendums on tax policies, or changes in the social security systems. Those issues are just too complicated, and carry too many ramnifications, to let the average joe decide on them.
Democracy has its limitations, and those limitations start where the average citizen is simply not able to make a qualified decision about the topic at hand.

Would I feel confident if I was asked to make a decision on the Lisbon treaty today ? Hell no. It would take me weeks, if not months to work myself through the treaty text, and since I have no experience in these matters, even then there is little chance I'd be able to grasp the implications in its entirety.
All of that, while I would still have to work my regular job ? Come on, that's just not feasible.
We elect representatives because it is the best compromise between a direct democracy and a dictatorship.

To me, it's a matter of principle. I mean, why elect representatives in the first place, when you don't trust them anyway, and take their voting power away through referendums ?

I realize that a lot of ordinary people think that their elected representatives have lost touch with them, that they do not understand what the people really want, and that they only follow the instructions of a small political and economic elite anyway. Some of that is true, especially with career politicians.
But are more referendums really the answer ? just because they are the "people", are they really more qualified to make decisions on these matters ? Every four years is a good compromise, I'd say.
I have to disagree. Direct democracy has worked very well for us. Even though we're a little crappy country with next to no natural resources, we are nowadays one of the richest in the world. We have pretty much no unemployment. Our people take the time to look at what they are voting on. Sure, hardly anyone reads the whole law, but that's what political parties are there for. They highlight the problems with the new laws and present them to the public. And I have to say there haven't been any stupid votes for as long as I can remember. I might not agree with them, but they are usually made well-informed.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2008-05-28 04:51:10
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire wrote:

Since it's actually voting on everything.  Electing representatives is just a compromise to avoid going the way of the Athenians.
It's still democracy. Representative democracy.
Which is a term for a form of government that isn't a democracy.
Which would be a true statement, if it wasn't wrong.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As I just said the body will exist when the people make it a critical enough issue for those running for office to make it a central part of their respective platforms.
Not necessarily.  If nobody agrees to argue about it, the people won't see themselves as having  choice.
It's the people that need to argue about it to their elected officials. Just because you elect them to office doesn't mean you cease interacting with them.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the treaty is viewed as negative by the people, then any repercussions should be of lesser concern than staying in the treaty.
But it doesn't change the fact that the nation is stuck with the consequences of a treaty they didn't want to join in the first place.
Only so long as the government decides to remain part of the treaty. Which goes back to the question: Just how important is it to the populace? Are they willing to engage with their elected officials about it or not?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Regardless, the cost/benefit analysis must be done to justify either action (joining or pulling out of the treaty).
And the people believe it shouldn't be done.
See previous point.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-28 05:34:20
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:


It's still democracy. Representative democracy.
Which is a term for a form of government that isn't a democracy.
Which would be a true statement, if it wasn't wrong.
Well if wikipedia says it, it must be true.

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As I just said the body will exist when the people make it a critical enough issue for those running for office to make it a central part of their respective platforms.
Not necessarily.  If nobody agrees to argue about it, the people won't see themselves as having  choice.
It's the people that need to argue about it to their elected officials. Just because you elect them to office doesn't mean you cease interacting with them.
But it does mean they have direct power.

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the treaty is viewed as negative by the people, then any repercussions should be of lesser concern than staying in the treaty.
But it doesn't change the fact that the nation is stuck with the consequences of a treaty they didn't want to join in the first place.
Only so long as the government decides to remain part of the treaty. Which goes back to the question: Just how important is it to the populace? Are they willing to engage with their elected officials about it or not?
As I said, there are repercussions if they back out.

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Regardless, the cost/benefit analysis must be done to justify either action (joining or pulling out of the treaty).
And the people believe it shouldn't be done.
See previous point.
Except that that ignores the fact that the government know the people's desires and is acting against them.
2008-05-28 06:09:17
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's still democracy. Representative democracy.
Which is a term for a form of government that isn't a democracy.
Which would be a true statement, if it wasn't wrong.
Well if wikipedia says it, it must be true.
Because wikipedia isn't sourced from elsewhere?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As I just said the body will exist when the people make it a critical enough issue for those running for office to make it a central part of their respective platforms.
Not necessarily.  If nobody agrees to argue about it, the people won't see themselves as having  choice.
It's the people that need to argue about it to their elected officials. Just because you elect them to office doesn't mean you cease interacting with them.
But it does mean they have direct power.
But not absolute power. They are accountable for acting against the will and/or interests of their constituents.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the treaty is viewed as negative by the people, then any repercussions should be of lesser concern than staying in the treaty.
But it doesn't change the fact that the nation is stuck with the consequences of a treaty they didn't want to join in the first place.
Only so long as the government decides to remain part of the treaty. Which goes back to the question: Just how important is it to the populace? Are they willing to engage with their elected officials about it or not?
As I said, there are repercussions if they back out.
And as I said, the repercussions have to be weighed against the benefits of doing so.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:


And the people believe it shouldn't be done.
See previous point.
Except that that ignores the fact that the government know the people's desires and is acting against them.
Then those representatives should be looking for new jobs after the next elections...which is in the peoples' hands.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-28 06:54:27
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

FEOS wrote:

Because wikipedia isn't sourced from elsewhere?
So link to an original source which supports your assertion.

FEOS wrote:

But not absolute power. They are accountable for acting against the will and/or interests of their constituents.
No, they aren't.

FEOS wrote:

And as I said, the repercussions have to be weighed against the benefits of doing so.
But they are repercussions for backing out of a treaty they didn't want to have to enter in the first place.

FEOS wrote:

Then those representatives should be looking for new jobs after the next elections...which is in the peoples' hands.
Only if there's a party that lets them choose to back out.
2008-05-28 16:27:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because wikipedia isn't sourced from elsewhere?
So link to an original source which supports your assertion.
If you insist...
http://www.reapinc.org/Defdem.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w … hatdm2.htm
Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.
http://www.answers.com/topic/democracy (see item (3) on the page)

Is that adequate?

Bub wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But not absolute power. They are accountable for acting against the will and/or interests of their constituents.
No, they aren't.
So they are appointed for life and never stand for reelection?

Bub wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And as I said, the repercussions have to be weighed against the benefits of doing so.
But they are repercussions for backing out of a treaty they didn't want to have to enter in the first place.
And? We're talking about whether that situation can be corrected, not whether it should have been entered into to begin with.

Bub wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Then those representatives should be looking for new jobs after the next elections...which is in the peoples' hands.
Only if there's a party that lets them choose to back out.
As I said before, if it's important enough to the people, then the candidates have to take a position...which would serve as the electorate's litmus test for holding the office.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-06-01 06:20:55
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|6876|Ontario, Canada
The people of Ireland need to stop this thing dead in its tracks right now.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
2008-06-12 03:10:23
Lieutenant_Jensen
Your cops are corrupt.
+200|6813|fåking denmark
All Irish People, vote NO to this tractate.

Your own PM haven't even read it.
2008-06-12 03:27:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978
My gut feeling from the street is that Ireland will vote no. We shall know tomorrow evening...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-12 04:59:03)

2008-06-12 04:45:03
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6713|Éire
I am going to vote no. I fully understand the need for a strong, unified, economic European entity in these challenging times but the restructuring that this treaty will implement WILL reduce Ireland's input in terms of qualified majority voting. If you take this reduced voting weight and combine it with the fact that we will be without a Commissioner for five years at a time then we will be all but forgotten by the big European guns during these 5 year periods.

It is also my belief that when we reach 'end-game' in terms of oil and food supplies it will be of no consequence how strong our European ties are as the big European powers will still fight and struggle to have the European institutions suit their own needs first and the smaller nations' needs second...and our weaker voting power will help them in this regard. Will France or Germany give a shit if people are cold in Ireland when we're down to the last few drops of oil?...I don't think so.

If we're going to take the approach that we all need to merge into one big European identity that shares common economic and military policies and a common legal system just so as we can all fight tooth and nail over the last scraps of food and oil in the same way that the US does then we might as well stop pretending we're on any kind of moral high ground and just try and persuade the Russians to join the EU so we can scab off their oil and gas supplies.

Our Government have insulted us by expecting us to digest a complex 250 page legal document in only 21 days. With more time to scrutinise and discuss this treaty I may well have voted yes but I sure as hell was never going to sign up to it on the argument that we should simply 'trust our Government'.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard