A household in conflict (or a light look at Lisbon)

[adrem]

Pat and Mary have 3 kids. They joke that the house is kind of a democracy – once you recognise that Pat and Mary have bigger votes than the kids !!

Time has moved on and the kids have grown up, acquired partners and even brought new kids into the world. All agreed that as the house was plenty big enough and as living together gave substantial benefits in the form of security, improved buying power, economies of scale that the kids would continue to live in the house with their new families.

Whilst everyone was happy with the concept there was also general agreement that the rules were going to have to change to accommodate the new set up.

They spent quite some time negotiating the new house rules. In the meantime they did put some interim arrangements in place. Each family unit was represented at the negotiations and represented the needs of their family. In all cases bar 1 the representative was authorised to sign off on the new rules. One of the kids had agreed with his partner that he would bring the final deal back to her before signing off.

Unfortunately – he returned to the negotiators with the bad news that his family couldn’t sign up to the new rules.

Obviously his mother, father and siblings were quite taken aback by this.

Of course we’re not going to throw you out or anything of the sort but this is a surprise exclaimed his father. After all you were at all the negotiations over the past few months – in fact it was you that got the final agreement from the rest of us to a number of the sticky proposals. What is it your family is not happy with?

Well, he said, as you know our family is a democracy – so we put it to the vote.

One of my kids hasn’t read the list of rules – he didn’t get time and also heard that they were complicated so he reckons by saying no, the status quo will be grand by him. No harm done and all that.

But – said the Mother – that leaves out the fact that we all decided that we needed to change the rules to take account of our changed circumstances so the status quo isn’t actually “grand”. Also – we’re not imposing this change – you agreed that change was needed.

Another of my kids is a bit concerned about the TV rules. As it operates now each family has the same amount of time in charge of the telly – that means though that some times we have no control over the telly – we want more than that.

But said one sibling – that doesn’t make sense – you were the one that helped us negotiate the equal rights to telly clause. Why would we now decide to give your family more rights than we have?

OK – but there is also the food issue. You guys are healthier eaters than us. We don’t want bloody tofu and all that.

But said another sibling – we already agreed that you could opt in or out of the healthy eating at no cost to you or your family.

Yeah but there’s also the common holiday plans – we don’t always want to do what you guys do. Again – we already agreed that no-one can force the others to go on holidays with them. You’re welcome to but you don’t have to – you can opt in or out – that’s in the rules – you put it in there yourself.

And on it went – until finally Mary called a break and said to her son quietly – look son, you know you’re welcome to stay here with your family but you are not a foolish man – you know that there needs to be some rules. You negotiated those rules – we’re not foisting them on you. What’s the real story here? Well Mam he said, I’m not sure that all of my family really want to stay here anymore – I’m fairly sure most of us do – but the ones that don’t seem to have confused the rest of us and made us disbelieve and distrust the intentions of the rest of the family.

Well said his mother, who was good at this sort of thing – you have to decide whether you want in or out. We’ll respect your decision either way. We won’t stop you leaving but we won’t force you to stay either. We’ll miss you but we won’t be able to offer you the benefits that you currently get from living here with us – of course you will have regained your personal freedom so maybe that’s what you want?

[rockofcashel]

So what are you trying to say Adrem ....

The Irish people are being told to vote Yes or F..off

Haven't seen that on many posters

Wonder why

[adrem]

No - the opposite. It's made quite clear that the dissenter is always welcome to stay in the house with his family - instead the Mammy is simply asking him to look at the real reasons for voting no because the ones stated don't actually add up.

(and it is only a light hearted thing at this stage RoC so don't be gettin thick with me !)

[Coggy]

No - the opposite. It's made quite clear that the dissenter is always welcome to stay in the house with his family - instead the Mammy is simply asking him to look at the real reasons for voting no because the ones stated don't actually add up.

(and it is only a light hearted thing at this stage RoC so don't be gettin thick with me !)

So your telling everyone to read the lisbon treaty ?

[adrem]

No - the opposite. It's made quite clear that the dissenter is always welcome to stay in the house with his family - instead the Mammy is simply asking him to look at the real reasons for voting no because the ones stated don't actually add up.

(and it is only a light hearted thing at this stage RoC so don't be gettin thick with me !)

So your telling everyone to read the lisbon treaty ?

To an extent - probably more a comment on the fact that a lot of No people explain that they are voting No for reasons that are simply nothing to do with the treaty itself. Eg.s

No to stop abortion

No to keep us out of common defence

No because the other EU countries weren't allowed vote on it

No because I haven't read it

No because I don't want my kids to be conscripted (I kid you not - I didn't even bother !)

People say Vote No if you don't understand or haven't read the treaty - I think perhaps the admonition should have been would you ever take the 30 mins to read up on the issues and make an informed decision rather than cop-out like that.

[rockofcashel]

No - the opposite. It's made quite clear that the dissenter is always welcome to stay in the house with his family - instead the Mammy is simply asking him to look at the real reasons for voting no because the ones stated don't actually add up.

(and it is only a light hearted thing at this stage RoC so don't be gettin thick with me !)

Ok, apologies, just tense at this stage is all

[richie268]

Each of the Children had a cannabis addiction (maybe) Pat and Mary where wide to this but new it was a problem and discussed
and explored the problem with the children in an honest manner(cant name the children for legal reasons) each child admitted to smoking 5 joints a day and explained how each took a turn rolling 15 joints,Pat and Mary were very upset at this news,but the children had explained that if they lived in a different part of Europe this was the norm,so Mary and Pat Decided on action but been a democratic house any proposal would have to go to a vote.
The proposal was put to the Kids "ok kids heres the deal " Me and your Da dont want you,s smoking 5 joints each a day but we realize there is little we can do however we want to reserve the right to roll 5 of the joints a day"
The children never really understood their Parents but had appreciated the fact that they lived in a democratic house so they gave great thought to the Proposal,The eldest did not understand it as he had smoked far too much dope in his early years but the other two agreed that they would have no way of knowing the quantity and quality of the 5 joints their Mammy and Daddy where rolling ,apart from anything there was no guarantee they would be there to see these five joints rolled.
So Mary and Pat and the Kids had a vote and the rest is history.

[adrem]

probably more likely that they decided to set up a committee to consider the issue of drugs in the wider sense and whether or not there were any lessons that could be learned from a review of house drug policies. All members of the extended family had died from boredom and/or old age by the time the committee report was nearing completion !