Lisbon Treaty

[Dodge]

Could draw the conclusion that Ganley is just a British Tory in disguise and we bought his guff hook, line and sinker....

Thats if you gove his capmpaign credit for the no vote. I despise ganley but voted no, and the fact he claims my vote abhors me

[Macy]

Could draw the conclusion that Ganley is just a British Tory in disguise and we bought his guff hook, line and sinker....
Ganley/ Libertas were only one part of the no vote, whatever spin is put on it.

[OneRedArmy]

Ganley/ Libertas were only one part of the no vote, whatever spin is put on it.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the others who fought on a platform that your children would be either be conscripted or forced to have an abortion, all whilst paying higher taxes........

[Macy]

Did you miss the Trade Unions and some of the left wing parties saying they wouldn't support it because we didn't have enough workers protections in place to counteract measures in the Treaty?

[OneRedArmy]

Did you miss the Trade Unions and some of the left wing parties saying they wouldn't support it because we didn't have enough workers protections in place to counteract measures in the Treaty?I take your point and my response was slightly in jest, but its hard to argue that Ganley made the biggest impact in the campaign and undoubtedly swung the vote.

[Macy]

I take your point and my response was slightly in jest, but its hard to argue that Ganley made the biggest impact in the campaign and undoubtedly swung the vote.
I think, given the amount of coverage post Lisbon, he appealed to a certain demographic (middle and upper class) that make up the media. Same people who think the PD's "broke the mould".

[Dodge]

I take your point and my response was slightly in jest, but its hard to argue that Ganley made the biggest impact in the campaign and undoubtedly swung the vote.

Was the vote there to be swung?

[OneRedArmy]

Was the vote there to be swung?Based on tracking polls, yes.

There's no doubt the vote did swing in the 6 months leading up to the referendum, what caused it is somewhat up for debate.

[mypost]

I see Declan Ganley was having dinner with yer man last night.

Ganley went to visit Klaus in July, and Klaus was returning the compliment. They're both entitled to have dinner with whoever they like.


Could draw the conclusion that Ganley is just a British Tory in disguise and we bought his guff hook, line and sinker....

Rubbish.

Ganley was once a supporter of FF, and voted Yes to both Nice refs. I don't agree that he "swung the vote". When the ref was on the horizon, people opened their eyes to the future they were faced with, and voted correctly.

I don't agree with all of Ganley's views on the EU, e.g. while he is in favour of an EU President, I am bitterly opposed to it. He holds genuine concerns on the level of democratic accountabilty in the EU, as I do, and that's his main reasons for his fight against the EU Constitution.

[OneRedArmy]

When the ref was on the horizon, people opened their eyes to the future they were faced with, and voted correctly.Absolute ******** and confirmed as such in multiple polls since.

Leave aside whether the result was a good thing or not, a significant percentage of the population didn't understand what they were voting on.

Put it this way, if they did understand what they were voting on then a second referendum should hold no fear for the No camp, it would surely only reinforce the decision. Why in that case are you arguing vehemently against a second vote? Fear that the main parties will get their act together and sell it better this time?

Secondly, you're a Euro-sceptic. Your posts are not just anti-Lisbon, they are anti-EU, yet you won't even admit this.

[Macy]

Leave aside whether the result was a good thing or not, a significant percentage of the population didn't understand what they were voting on.
Both Yes and No voters though, which is often over looked. Could turn out ill informed Yes voters could switch too

[mypost]

Absolute ******** and confirmed as such in multiple polls since.

So the polls are gospel then?? If so, how come all the polls suggested a Yes victory, until a week before the vote??


Leave aside whether the result was a good thing or not, a significant percentage of the population didn't understand what they were voting on.

Put it this way, if they did understand what they were voting on then a second referendum should hold no fear for the No camp, it would surely only reinforce the decision. Why in that case are you arguing vehemently against a second vote? Fear that the main parties will get their act together and sell it better this time?

In the poll/research that the government are treating as the definitive reasons behind the vote, only 18% of the 46% Yes voters stated they knew what they were voting on. The other 28% voted Yes, because a) they also didn't understand what they were voting on, and b) the government (and mainstream media) told them to.

The main reason why No voters didn't understand the Treaty, was that despite the info from websites, the canvassing, and the leaflets, the government didn't explain what it was about. Why? Because a) they couldn't and b) they didn't want to.


Secondly, you're a Euro-sceptic. Your posts are not just anti-Lisbon, they are anti-EU, yet you won't even admit this.

More blx.

I am in favour of EU integration, (currency, trade, new members, etc) but not EU political union. The EU that Brussels wants, is very different to what the majority of the people they "represent" want, but they're willing to ignore the will of their own voters. That is not democratic, and therefore I can't support it.

[OneRedArmy]

If there's anything undemocratic its a situation whereby everybody "gets a turn" at Governing regardless of relative population, one man one vote etc.

Thats generally known as gerrymandering.

[mypost]

It's called sharing power, something that politicians here, and in NI, should be used to.

If there was a nuclear terrorist attack on France/Germany/UK tomorrow, resulting in mass evacuations among the population, those countries may not have the biggest populations in the EU anymore, but under Lisbon, it would be seen that way. Which shows the uselessness of governing by population size.

Berlusconi made comments last week, seen as "racist" by some towards the new American President. If he was EU President and representing the views of all member states, we yes Ireland, would have to face the fallout of such comments for up to 5 years, instead of the current system where a new President can clean up the diplomatic breakdown after 6 months. His EU Presidency in 2003 was disasterous, but within 6 months, Bertie had cleaned up the damage. That's the benefit of the current system.

[Angus]

I take your point and my response was slightly in jest, but its hard to argue that Ganley made the biggest impact in the campaign and undoubtedly swung the vote.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

From the Latin which means just becasue it followed it doesn't mean it caused it.

I kknow exaclty where you are coming from and you are right but as a wider point, we really should move away from the idea that we should vote , or did vote, a particular way because of a campaign or becasue of who it will please / annoy.

I have voted for things in the past where my fellow travelleres were among the most despicable people - this is in the nature of things and unfortunately is a major flaw of our system.

We get to decide in soundbites and opposed to in prose - we cannot deliver nuance - we are asked to give a yes or no answer pretty much consistently which provides for awkward bedfellows....

[Bald Student]

If there was a nuclear terrorist attack on France/Germany/UK tomorrow, resulting in mass evacuations among the population, those countries may not have the biggest populations in the EU anymore, but under Lisbon, it would be seen that way. Which shows the uselessness of governing by population size.That's a good point.

[OneRedArmy]

post hoc ergo propter hoc

From the Latin which means just becasue it followed it doesn't mean it caused it.
Also the title of the second episode of the first series of the West Wing.

[pete]

Ganley has no actual convictions. For some unknown reason he was opposed to Lisbon & doubt we will ever find out why. The fact that he has aligned himself with any anti EU or Lisbon group shows this.

[mypost]

Ganley has no actual convictions. For some unknown reason he was opposed to Lisbon & doubt we will ever find out why.

It's public knowledge what his reason was for opposing Lisbon. I've already stated it once today.

[pete]

It's public knowledge what his reason was for opposing Lisbon. I've already stated it once today.

Why has he aligned himself with every anti-EU group you can think of. He wasn't even willing to distance himself from lies of some Irish groups.

[Student Mullet]

Why has he aligned himself with every anti-EU group you can think of. He wasn't even willing to distance himself from lies of some Irish groups.

Sure, he was telling some of the lies himself.

I remember John McCain had a line during the election, "We went to change Washington but we let Washington change us.". Libertas didn't seem to need to go through a conversion process, they arrived pre-packaged with all the worst elements of politics from dodgey claims to dodgey finances.

[mypost]

The pro-treaty camp, both here and abroad, told their own version of lies. And as for their finances, there's a fair bit of that too.


Why has he aligned himself with every anti-EU group you can think of.

He wants to defeat the Treaty, it's mainly Euro-sceptic groups that are anti-Treaty. From the Tories in Britain to the Northern League in Italy. This treaty is a politician's dream charter, so 90% of them across Europe want it, even if citizens hate it, and it has been rejected by 3 electorates.

What they mean by "efficiency", they actually mean dictatorship. The ex-Russian countries promised to be "strong", "united", and "efficient" too from the end of WWII. The fact that all the "strong, united voice" and "efficiency" bullsht, led to the economic collapse of their country, and the impoverishment of the people didn't matter to them. They didn't care how it affected their electorates then, and they don't care how it affects them now. They want it, and they're willing to stamp over the wishes of their own people to get it. Well, we'll tell them that they can't and they won't.

[mypost]

Wallstrom was in town last night for an interview with Ursula Halligan. It was supposed to include a webchat Q&A part.

Halligan is a poor interviewer, and it was 20 minutes in before anything serious was discussed. 20 minutes later, questions were invited from the floor.

There were no questions taken from the web. :rolleyes:

[SMorgan]

There was a responsibility on both sides of the debate to make the issues clear and ensure that people knew what they were voting on. Both sides misrepresented their cases and in such situations the opposing side should have gained an advantage by outlining the actual situation. What if the No side win the next vote? Will you be back looking for another vote with the silly argument that if the No side feel they have the support of the nation then they shouldn't be opposed to a new poll. With that line of thinking we'd be voting every six months on the issue until you get the result you want, then of course it will be the end of the matter. Ireland exercised its right to have a referendum on the issue and after a full debate the nation voted No. Why can you not accept the decision?

[OneRedArmy]

Ireland exercised its right to have a referendum on the issue and after a full debate the nation voted No. Why can you not accept the decision?There wasn't a full debate.

Thats exactly the point.

[mypost]

Ireland exercised its right to have a referendum on the issue and after a full debate the nation voted No. Why can you not accept the decision?

We didn't have a right to have a referendum, it was mandatory under our constitution, but the federalists were never going to accept the result. They wanted to deny us a referendum like everywhere else, never mind accept the No answer.

[Student Mullet]

We didn't have a right to have a referendum, it was mandatory under our constitution, but the federalists were never going to accept the result. They wanted to deny us a referendum like everywhere else, never mind accept the No answer.

Libertas are federalists and have accepted the result. From what I can tell the people who are most annoyed are those who want to keep the power with the national governments and away from federally elected elected politicians.

[mypost]

:confused:

Libertas are democrats, and fought the ref on that basis. There are many references to the level of democracy in the EU, on their site.

Those who are annoyed with the result are the reverse of who you state.

[Student Mullet]

:confused:

Libertas are democrats, and fought the ref on that basis. There are many references to the level of democracy in the EU, on their site.Democrats and federalists aren't opposites of each other, it's possible to be both.

[mypost]

Democrats and federalists aren't opposites of each other, it's possible to be both.

On this specific issue, they are.

The democrats want the politicians to be held accountable at the ballot box, the federalists want to govern without having to be accountable for their decisions.

[OneRedArmy]

the federalists want to govern without having to be accountable for their decisions.
This is not my understanding of what a federalism (ergo federalist) is.

Federalism is the sharing of power between centre and constituent units. Federalists want a relative increase in the power to be held at the centre and they want the accountabilility for this to better reflect the voting power of the constituent units.

Democracy is not at odds with federalism, quite the opposite.

I can grasp that you disagree with the concept of federalism, and thats fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't continually and deliberately misrepresent what federalism is.

[Student Mullet]

The democrats want the politicians to be held accountable at the ballot box, the federalists want to govern without having to be accountable for their decisions.
But the question is which ballot box the politicians should be accountable to. Federalists like Libertas want a directly elected president of Europe and other federal structures, to model the Union on the federal republics like Germany or the USA. In this structure politicians would be accountable to the people of Europe as a whole, not to the individual countries electorates.

The Lisbon treaty kept the bulk of the power with the national governments, where we can hold our own politicians to account but we have no say over what the foreign politicians do.

Both systems are democratic but the demos is treated differently. Under the federal system that Libertas favours a European government would be directly accountable to the people of Europe as a single unit. Under the Nice and Lisbon treaties the people of Europe are treated as citizens of separate nations and they act mostly through their own governments.

[mypost]

If you wanted an open, transparent Constitution, with democracy at the heart of it, this is what should have happened:

The MEP's are sent home to their states and consult with their constituents on what their vision of Europe should be.
They then report back to the Commission their findings, which the Commission assesses, and forms the regulations of the Constitution on that basis.
The findings are approved by the Council of Ministers, and put before the electorates to accept in a referendum.
The proposal is then accepted, and the parliaments proceed to ratify through their parliaments.
EU Constitution adopted.

Instead, the proposals were: "This is what's been agreed, ratify it. Don't bother reading it, and don't bother putting it to the people either."

In a democracy, that kind of demand is not going to work, and accelerates Euroscepticism.

[pete]

Libertas are democrats...

I accept more people voted No against Yes but suggesting Libertas are democracts is laughable. Libertas are everything that they accuse the EU of. Shadowy mysteriously financed unelected organisation. Ganleys claims about funding just don't add up as Libertas only have a handful of "members".

[mypost]

I don't see what funding has to do with the ref result. Both sides used the resources at their disposal in their campaign. The Yes side's financial resources were very strong, whether they used them effectively or not is an issue for them.

[mypost]

.....


Senior Spokesperson for Libertas, Caroline Simons, issued the following statement in response to criticism of Czech President Vaclav Klaus from various sections of the Irish political establishment:

"Today's spluttering, incoherent, bluster from the political establishment in this country is very revealing, in that it shows how angry they are that the central basis of their argument for a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been so devastatingly undermined.

Ireland is not alone in Europe. President Klaus has shown himself to be a friend to the majority of Irish citizens who rejected the Lisbon Treaty. That he is the incoming President of the EU council is even more significant.

Dick Roche, Joe Costello, and Billy Timmins have spent today publicly regretting the fact that the Irish public were able to hear the views of a fellow democrat. I would hope that that would give them pause for thought.

The Irish people have eyes and ears. They can clearly see the truth of Ireland's position in Europe, and they can also see that the people they have elected would rather that they did not have all of the facts.

Combined with the reports yesterday that the Government may consider limiting access to the airwaves for its opponents, this paints an uncomfortable portrait of the view of democracy held by our leaders, - especially given Minister Roche's continued churlish and deceitful references to "free debate" in Ireland.

I congratulate President Klaus on his courage, dignity, and service, and we in Libertas will never for one moment regret that the Irish people are able to hear the stated positions of our European colleagues"

[OneRedArmy]

So when Sarkozy came he was interfering and you got on your high horse about it, yet when Klaus comes he's welcomed as a friend of the Irish people...

[shantykelly]

So when Sarkozy came he was interfering and you got on your high horse about it, yet when Klaus comes he's welcomed as a friend of the Irish people...

conversely Kev, those who defended sarkozy's right to comment on the situation in favour of the Treaty must now surely defend klaus' right to comment against the Treaty. fair's fair. i would like to see more balanced, intellignet rational comments from the eu regarding the situation over the lisbon treaty. bypass (or work alongside) the governemtn and try and explain the rationale behind the treaty, and also try and understand why the majority of those who voted, voted no - you know, mature, rational reasoned debate and discussion.

[mypost]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/brash-martin-shows-he-has-yet-to-master-the-art-of-protocol-1541321.html

[mypost]

In response to the laughable "poll" published at the weekend, here's another poll from the same paper, only this time with explanations.

http://http://www.irishtimes.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pn=6&lastID=140773&subsiteid=356&pollid=8602

[Student Mullet]

But the question is which ballot box the politicians should be accountable to. Federalists like Libertas want a directly elected president of Europe and other federal structures, to model the Union on the federal republics like Germany or the USA. In this structure politicians would be accountable to the people of Europe as a whole, not to the individual countries electorates.

The Lisbon treaty kept the bulk of the power with the national governments, where we can hold our own politicians to account but we have no say over what the foreign politicians do.

Both systems are democratic but the demos is treated differently. Under the federal system that Libertas favours a European government would be directly accountable to the people of Europe as a single unit. Under the Nice and Lisbon treaties the people of Europe are treated as citizens of separate nations and they act mostly through their own governments.

Hi again,
Reading back through that, it contains a few claims not backed up with evidence. I'll add a direct quote from one of Ganley's speaches to back myself up;

"A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world. A federal Europe is a pretty good idea".

from this speech: http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

[pete]

In response to the laughable "poll" published at the weekend, here's another poll from the same paper, only this time with explanations.

http://http://www.irishtimes.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pn=6&lastID=140773&subsiteid=356&pollid=8602

The fact that so many said they were undecided makes that poll meaningless.

Ganley in front of the an Oireachtas Committee today. Will be interesting to see how he explains his funding as the numbers don't add up. Still don't trust the guy & don't know why he has any interest in the EU.

[mypost]

Hi again,
Reading back through that, it contains a few claims not backed up with evidence. I'll add a direct quote from one of Ganley's speaches to back myself up;

"A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world. A federal Europe is a pretty good idea".

The key word in there is "structured properly", i.e. democratically elected.

As it's well known by now, I'm opposed to the idea of an EU President. It's a recipe for disaster for small countries like us, and Europe as a whole. The current system gives us the opportunity for 6 months, of leading the continent, for the same amount of time as France or Malta do.

[OneRedArmy]

The key word in there is "structured properly", i.e. democratically elected.

As it's well known by now, I'm opposed to the idea of an EU President. It's a recipe for disaster for small countries like us, and Europe as a whole. The current system gives us the opportunity for 6 months, of leading the continent, for the same amount of time as France or Malta do.Which is effectively gerrymandering.

[mypost]

Aka Sharing power.

[Student Mullet]

The key word in there is "structured properly", i.e. democratically elected.

As it's well known by now, I'm opposed to the idea of an EU President. It's a recipe for disaster for small countries like us, and Europe as a whole. The current system gives us the opportunity for 6 months, of leading the continent, for the same amount of time as France or Malta do.

I agree with most of that.
If we go back to the start of this discussion, the question was whether the federalists are happy that the treaty was rejected. The federalists in Ireland are and I'd guess that that's probably true across Europe as a whole.

[pete]

Martyn Turner says it for me in todays Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/cartoons/turner/2008/1118/18.jpg

[shantykelly]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence-agency

i think the last couple of paragraphs might have some bearing on this debate.

[pete]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence-agency

i think the last couple of paragraphs might have some bearing on this debate.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. I don't know what the solution is but the EU is definitely in danger of becoming less influential in the world. It cannot continue to sit on the sidelines.

There is a show on BBC where Jonathan Dimbleby travels across Russia. He asks weathly locals in St Peterburg if they think their country is democratic & they really don't care - they suggest you can go into private enterprise or a government career & the two don't cross. Seems China & Russia will be more powerful than ever before in quasi-capitalist world economy with only a hint of democracy.

[mypost]

If Russia and China want to be not democratic, that's their business. It doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

It's in our interests to build positive relationships with those countries however. That will not be achieved by subscribing to Lisbon, in order to "confront" them.