Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
On the incomprehensibility of the Lisbon Treaty
Read more about: Europe, Foreign Affairs, Grassroots, Irish Politics, Law, Lisbon Treaty, Referenda
I’m one of those people who hasn’t quite decided which way they’re going to vote on in the referendum. This is because I haven’t got around to reading all of the text I’m voting on yet. However, there’s one incredibly stupid argument the no camp is bandying about right now. It’s an argument that does an incredible amount of disservice to everybody. That argument is:
The Lisbon Treaty is an incomprehensible document, which is NOT readable in a linear way. It was NOT meant to be read by anyone, just to be blindly accepted. It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences.
So writes howardh (who I’m presuming is the Howard Holby who wrote this Indymedia article, which reads like he thinks the EU is one big conspiracy) of the The Lisbon Treaty Blog. I’ve heard this thrown about a lot, and I have to dispel it. Here’s an example he gives:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
64] Article 61 shall be replaced by the following Chapter 1 and Articles 61 to 61 I. Article 61 shall also replace the current Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 61 D shall replace Article 36 thereof, Article 61 E shall replace Article 64(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the current Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union,
Yup, completely unreadable to the average person. Frankly, I can see how people would have difficultly reading this. However, to assume that this is what you’re meant to read is to confuse the map with the territory.
I’m a software developer, and the text of the Lisbon Treaty is what we call a diff. Diffs are useful and describe in succinct terms the changes between two different version of the same piece of software. It’s not surprising that the legal profession and the software development profession both came up with the same idea: we both deal with large reams of text, we both need to be able to trace the change in those reams of text, and need to be able to distribute those change in a manner that shows the changes explicitly. However, the diffs themselves are rarely read in isolation. So it is with the Treaty.
When you’re voting on the Lisbon Treaty, you’re voting on a whole bunch of changes to existing treaties to consolidate them into a single body of law: if you want to know what you’re really voting for, it’s this consolidated body of law you need to read. And guess what, there have been copies of the consolidated treaties floating around for ages.
For instance, if you type “lisbon treaty consolidated” into Google, you get Peadar Ó Broin’s consolidated text, which has been around since January 16th of this year. Alternatively, Libertas, if you’re suspicious that Ó Broin might have some pro-treaty bias, also have an excellent consolidated text with annotations. Read and download one or the other. If you want a good overview, head to the Wikipedia page on the treaty, but don’t forget to read the treaty text too.
Contrary what some in the No camp say, the consolidated treaties, though running into over 300 pages in total, is actually pretty clear. Best as I can tell, there’s no great, if any, effort at obfuscation. So please, ignore the scaremongering from both the Yes and No camps, read the consolidated treaty text, and make your own mind up.
And if anybody brings up the incomprehensibility argument, print out the consolidated treaty and whack them across the back of the head with it. You’ll be doing them and the country a service.
Funny enough Gerry Adams was on the television today confirming the readability of the Lisbon Treaty and suggesting that the “unreadable” myth was being put out there by the ‘Yes’ camp to discourage voters from reading the text and, instead, simply taking their word for it.
I think this is an example of what’s really putting voters off - both sides are saying whatever they can to advance their argument even if it contradicts reality or other things they’ve said.
Everyone with half a brain knows that the threat of Ireland being booted out of the EU if we reject the treaty is scaremongering - likewise the same logical people know that accepting the treaty won’t mean the end of Ireland as a free nation. The problem is that with these distractions in play there’s very little else they do know about the things that matter.
A good point and i thought that was what the Times were publishing on Sunday. When I saw it was the actual treaty I felt it was a little bit of bad faith - we know it doesnt make sense so to put it in context is more a public service. Still agendas and all that.
Nice try but failed again.
Could you please quote where exactly the Irish government and/or the EU attached the consolidated version to their widely publicised pro-Lisbon campaign? Or where exactly the government campaign or the EU refers to a link to a linear version of the treaty? (The EU’s official site has also failed to post the full treaty; only offers the amendments for downloading under the name of “Lisbon Treaty”.)
Or you apparently assume that all the Irish voters just need to be as “smart” as you are and will have the time and energy to dig a readable treaty up to the surface to enable themselves to make an informed decision. Or, despite the ongoing aggressive deceit-campaign for a yes vote pushed by the EU and the Irish government, everyone should be a NO voter by default and as such should read the Libertas NO group daily, the organisation having posted a consolidated version of the treaty. Or, maybe all voters should actually prepare their own consolidated version from the treaties and the Lisbon amendments, maybe by using their own developed software for the purpose.
Btw, conspiracy is a word that the pro-Lisbon camp uses even when the subject is not discussed at all. They are so obsessed with the idea of a “conspiracy theory” that speaks volumes by itself. On the other hand, it has been revealed by Bonde (former MEP) that the Lisbon Treaty is a product of conspiracy, - in practice, not in theory.
@Brian: Failed? How? What did I fail at exactly? You’ve left me a bit lost here.
Is the Department of Foreign Affairs good enough? http://www.reformtreaty.ie/documents/
Sorry, but you seem to have got things backwards. I’m not expressing annoyance at the voting public, but at people who use a disingenuous argument against the treaty. The incomprehensibility argument is disingenuous because it doesn’t help anybody decide in an informed way. It’s scaremongering in the same way the idiotic argument that if we don’t vote for the treaty, we’re somehow bad Europeans.
Personally, I think both sides are largely being deceitful in their own ways. From the tone of what you’ve written, you appear to be assuming bad faith on my part. Don’t: it’s neither just nor warranted. Personally, I don’t care what way anybody votes just as long as they make an informed decision.