Lisbon Treaty

[ped_ped]

Funny...

I get the turn of phrase. But why is he speechless that somebody has decided not to repay the EU with total obedience to their will???

[Dodge]

Funny...

I get the turn of phrase. But why is he speechless that somebody has decided not to repay the EU with total obedience to their will???

He's not. He's speechless that someone would think that the work the EU does/has done has no connection with the Lisbon treaty (as mypost posted)

Regardless of how you vote, its ridiculous to think that the work of the EU and the Lisbon treaty aren't intrinsically linked

[ped_ped]

Lisbon is linked to how the EU does work now, but it's a moot point what it has done in the past, in relation to the Treaty, and shouldn't influence your vote.

[Dodge]

So we should all vote for a politicians based on prospectus and completely forgot how they've performed over the years?

I doubt mypost would agree...

[OneRedArmy]

Dodge made my point far more eloquently than I ever could.

People who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

That quote is semi-relevant, but I kinda like it so I thought I'd use it.

Seriously though, I think ignoring the past is ridiculous.

[dahamsta]

Administrations that stray generally have an army behind them to back up their crazy schemes.

The EU has a putative rapid reaction force, that still reports through it's own national chain of command.Right now, yes. I did say Early Dictatorial. I'm sure you don't believe the EU is seeking powers beyond their needs, and that's fine; but I do.

[mypost]

He's not. He's speechless that someone would think that the work the EU does/has done has no connection with the Lisbon treaty (as mypost posted)

Regardless of how you vote, its ridiculous to think that the work of the EU and the Lisbon treaty aren't intrinsically linked

We know the EU was good for Ireland. We know that it gave us funding, as it does everywhere else. We know that it helped build infrastructure. But that's a history lesson and not what we're voting on. We're not writing a thank you card or a grant application. You're being asked if you want the EU's future to be decided according to what's set out in the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution? Do you want Ireland's already limited influence to be eroded even more? That's what the vote boils down to. Because one thing is certain, it's not going to affect our economy good or bad.

[Dodge]

Go on then, tell us how Ireland's influence won't be lessened by a no vote if thats your criteria.

[dahamsta]

You wouldn't be suggesting the EU is anti-democratic now Dodge, would you?

[Dodge]

You wouldn't be suggesting the EU is anti-democratic now Dodge, would you?

I didn't mean to.

I happen to think Ireland has precious little influence in europe.

I voted no last time, but one of the few things i liked was the streamlining of commissionaires, and I think its pretty stoopid to have one per country

[mypost]

I voted no last time, but one of the few things i liked was the streamlining of commissionaires, and I think its pretty stoopid to have one per country

Ran into a Yes man last week, reading Naoise Nunn's turncoat view in one of the broadsheet's. He has bought the "clarifications" argument, and is happy to vote for the government on the day. :rolleyes:

Nothing on the commissioner issue has been clarified or changed. A state's commissioner has been guaranteed for the coming 5 year term, but can (and probably will) then be changed back to the original arrangements next time. So, the original idea that a state will have one on the board for 2 out of every 3 terms as per the issue we voted on last year, is still standing.

[superfrank]

So, the original idea that a state will have one on the board for 2 out of every 3 terms as per the issue we voted on last year, is still standing.
If this is true, then I hope it stays because the commissioner argument was one of the stupidest ones I heard. Mary Lou made it sound as if Ireland was solely being discriminated against when it came to the commissioner changes and I felt like banging my head against a wall everytime I heard her.

[bennocelt]

If this is true, then I hope it stays because the commissioner argument was one of the stupidest ones I heard. Mary Lou made it sound as if Ireland was solely being discriminated against when it came to the commissioner changes and I felt like banging my head against a wall everytime I heard her.

No need to stop, please continue:p

[mypost]

"It's the economy stupid." Apparantly...

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/we-cant-afford-to-reject-lisbon-1848852.html

Poor voter obviously hasn't realised that the treaty is not about economics, but merely to "streamline the decision-making process in the EU"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/a-no-vote-puts-our-future-at-risk-1848850.html

She may be under the illusion that Lisbon is our economic recovery plan. However, Walkinstown is in a staunch No constituency, which had a 60% rejection of the treaty last year. The majority of the people there also know what side their bread is buttered on too.

[mypost]

Another obstacle put in front of the No side:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/bci-makes-changes-to-lisbon-coverage-guidelines-1851757.html

I'm sure RTE will take full advantage.

[jay1]

I hear the Government saying it's the first step out of the recession and I think to myself - hold on a minute -The Recession was here before we voted No so how could voting yes make any difference?

The Truth is it wont.

[Dodge]

I hear the Government saying it's the first step out of the recession
Where did they say that?

[Mr A]

Even by Sinn Fein standards this isn't very convincing: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0814/breaking39.htm

[mypost]

It's more convincing than the numerous lobby groups who are all cosying up to support the government.

[Mr A]

Really? Given that Sinn Fein have predicted dire consequences for every European vote ever and have been totally wrong each and every time?

And that they're allied with far-left nutjobs on the European scene yet preach about economics?

At least they didn't give out about militarisation this time round, that one's always good for a laugh.

[mypost]

Really? Given that Sinn Fein have predicted dire consequences for every European vote ever and have been totally wrong each and every time?

And that they're allied with far-left nutjobs on the European scene yet preach about economics?

The treaty is a) nothing to do with economics, and b) not a history lesson.

It is about how the EU (Ireland included) will be governed in the future, and have decisions made for us, without our consent if needs be, regardless of our circumstances. It creates a permanent political union, ruled by a self-amending document. That poses a very worrying future for this country.

The only answer for that is to reject it, and have the EU continue as is.

[OneRedArmy]

The treaty is a) nothing to do with economics, and b) not a history lesson.

It is about how the EU (Ireland included) will be governed in the future, and have decisions made for us, without our consent if needs be, regardless of our circumstances. It creates a permanent political union, ruled by a self-amending document. That poses a very worrying future for this country.

The only answer for that is to reject it, and have the EU continue as is.Define the emboldened bit further please if you would.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Another obstacle put in front of the No side:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/bci-makes-changes-to-lisbon-coverage-guidelines-1851757.html

I'm sure RTE will take full advantage.


Don't really see how it could be defined as an 'obstacle'. As Sinn Fein are the only party with elected representatives who actually oppose Lisbon, they in tandem with Joe Higgins could simply refuse to appear on panel discussions or to provide any other commentary on whatever media and could shut down discussion of the topic altogether.

[mypost]

Don't really see how it could be defined as an 'obstacle'. As Sinn Fein are the only party with elected representatives who actually oppose Lisbon, they in tandem with Joe Higgins could simply refuse to appear on panel discussions or to provide any other commentary on whatever media and could shut down discussion of the topic altogether.

There are a trainload of new and old lobby groups of various names lining up to support the government on polling day. As RTE don't have to give equal airtime to both sides, the Yes side will now have the majority of the coverage to make their case.

Meanwhile...

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/white-paper-on-lisbon-distorts-crucial-issues-1861619.html

[mypost]

Mickey Martin's response (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/second-no-will--deeply-damage-our-reputation-1863136.html)

Love this line:


I want us to be a strong team player in the unique league of democratic, like-minded nations that is the European Union.

Translation: "I want more power for me". :D

[mypost]

More warnings this time from the head of Concern, Tom Arnold:

What are they? War? Famine? Earthquake? Eh no, sulking instead.


Another No vote would result in “a marginalisation of influence and a loss of goodwill” towards Ireland within the EU.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0824/1224253137934.html

I can stand some sulking from a minority in Brussels if it means that the EU remains ruled by the Nice Treaty, and Ireland retains the little power and influence it currently has, Tom.

[mypost]

O'Leary sticks his nose in :mad:


Ryanair has said it will spend “more than €500,000” campaigning for a Yes vote in the October 2nd referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0826/breaking60.htm

That €500k would be far better spent on opening new routes, maintaining check-in desks, improving his customer care services, and saving jobs in his own firm.

He might be in for a surprise though in 6 weeks time.

[OneRedArmy]

Why is it "sticking their nose in" when business people get involved in the Yes campaign, yet you have nothing to say when BUSINESSMAN Declan Ganley and BUSINESSMAN Ullick McEvaddy lead the no campaign? :rolleyes:

[mypost]

McEvaddy is a minor player for the No side.

If the figures that Ryanair are "spending" are true on it, it's a slap in the face to Ryanair staff who lose their jobs because of the downturn. But it proves the theory that businessmen have "more money than sense".

[Macy]

O'Leary coming out as a "Yes", has gone a long way to secure a No vote, imo. O'Leary is anti workers rights, and the Government still hasn't put in place the protections for workers promised after the last no vote.

[mypost]

Given that he dismissed 450k people last week as "economically illiterate, unscrupulous dole scroungers", he knows how to win friends and influence people, doesn't he? :rolleyes:

[Lionel Ritchie]

O'Leary coming out as a "Yes", has gone a long way to secure a No vote, imo. O'Leary is anti workers rights, and the Government still hasn't put in place the protections for workers promised after the last no vote.


Given that he dismissed 450k people last week as "economically illiterate, unscrupulous dole scroungers", he knows how to win friends and influence people, doesn't he? :rolleyes:

I'm inclined to agree with both posts. The Yes side needs O'Leary mouthing off about as much as it needs the surgeon general presenting strong evidence that voting yes gives you clap.

[dahamsta]

I tend to disagree, the general public have an unhealthy respect for O'Leary's opinions, seeming to equate his particular brand of brashness as honesty. As a group, which is of course what we have to deal with, I would think the majority will think that what's good for O'Leary will be good for them. Completely in error, of course. O'Leary does what's good for O'Leary in the first instance, what's good for O'Leary in the second instance, and what's good for Ryanair in the last instance. The public never enters the equation.

Fitgerald's comments have been rubbished in turn by Karl Whelan (http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/08/31/garret-fitzgerald-and-the-budget-deficit/) and others. It's hard to argue with Karl, he's a ball of energy that comes across as a mite argumentative - which I sympathise with, as I get accused of the same - but he uses facts to back up his arguments, and the people I've seen him up against, well, they don't. What they say sounds like facts, but if you look into them they're generally bluff, or failing that blunder. He was on the radio the other day and they guy he was arguing completely personalised the whole thing, I was just waiting for the obnoxious little ******* to say "do you still beat your wife Karl?"* Seriously, that was the guys level.

adam


* To my shame, I got caught out with that when I was a young flame warrior on a mailing list I really had no intellectual right to be on. It's a lesson I've never forgotten. ;)

[OneRedArmy]

O'Leary is a sideshow.

Much more worrying is Cóir launching their campaign today. Lets hope the media take them to pieces for being the Youth Defence fascist scum they are and always have been. Time to drag up Justin Barrett's political history again methinks....

[Macy]

O'Leary is a sideshow.

Much more worrying is Cóir launching their campaign today. Lets hope the media take them to pieces for being the Youth Defence fascist scum they are and always have been. Time to drag up Justin Barrett's political history again methinks....
Or maybe the Government will completely fook everything up by attacking them and giving them credibility (and I'd completely agree with your sentiment about the bigots).

[OneRedArmy]

Or maybe the Government will completely fook everything up by attacking them and giving them credibility (and I'd completely agree with your sentiment about the bigots).Its worrying that we are well into what should be the real campaign and the real issues aren't yet being debated (by either side), which allows people like Cóir and O'Leary to fill the vacuum.

Its like deja vu all over again (as Yogi Berra once said :D).

[mypost]

Labour wheeled out A poster driven on the back of a truck:D declaring their position for next month on Monday.

The first pole posters in Dublin have come from Coir though, with a range of hard-hitting, effective messages backing up their campaign. So Round 1 in the marketing campaign to the No side. :)

[OneRedArmy]

Coir.........with a range of hard-hitting, effective messages backing up their campaign.God help us if the public fall for the tripe spouted by Youth Defence..,oops Cóir, no link there at all, even though they share the same members and offices....:rolleyes:

I actually think these loonies are a potential positive for the Yes side. People should be asked if they want to side with a far right, anti-divorce, anti-immigration bunch of zealots for whom defeating Lisbon is only a small step on their journey to bring Ireland back to the Dark Ages.

[Macy]

As with the post Lisbon1 focus on Libertas, the Yes side continue to focus on the right wing nutjobs with the the negative side of their campaigns*. It takes the focus off the leftist groups, that are obviously making points they find hard to rebut!

* not that I have a problem with them going after the aforementioned nutjobs - it's a pity this Government is so quick to panda to them on social reforms and advances such as gay marriage, blasphemy, schooling etc

[dahamsta]

The Coir posters are mostly crap, but then so is the rhetoric coming from the Yes side.

[John83]

I saw a poster the other day claiming that 95% of europeans would vote no. I was on a bus, and missed whose poster it was. Was it Coir? How partisan do you have to be to actually believe that?

[OneRedArmy]

I saw a poster the other day claiming that 95% of europeans would vote no. I was on a bus, and missed whose poster it was. Was it Coir? How partisan do you have to be to actually believe that?
Apparently its a Charlie McCreevy quote.

[John83]

Apparently its a Charlie McCreevy quote.
If my eyebrows go any higher, I'll look like an anime character.

[OneRedArmy]

If my eyebrows go any higher, I'll look like an anime character.Google it.

I've no idea whether he actually said it, but thats whats alleged.

[John83]

Google it.

I've no idea whether he actually said it, but thats whats alleged.
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/mccreevy-most-states-would-have-voted-no-95078.html

[Mr A]

It was 95% of countries, not 95% of Europeans. A bit on it here: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/stateoftheunion/2009/06/26/will-mccreevy-lead-the-no-campaign/

He's a complete **** in fairness, and a corrupt one at that.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I tend to disagree, the general public have an unhealthy respect for O'Leary's opinions, seeming to equate his particular brand of brashness as honesty. As a group, which is of course what we have to deal with, I would think the majority will think that what's good for O'Leary will be good for them. Completely in error, of course. O'Leary does what's good for O'Leary in the first instance, what's good for O'Leary in the second instance, and what's good for Ryanair in the last instance. The public never enters the equation.

I think I see what your saying and yet I reckon there might be a good few more passive yes voters out there than passive no voters. That is - I can picture a cohort of people who would stumble from the deathbeds to vote no. I find it difficult to picture a counterpart yes contingent.

O'Leary, given enough Oxygen of publicity, and lord knows he'll get it because he's cheap bluster yap on radio or tv, might just make some of that passive yes tune out and stay home.

[OneRedArmy]

How do you sell procedural efficiency?

In fairness, its not a particularly easy task.

[dahamsta]

One can but hope Lionel Richie.

Everyone else, I want be absolutely clear on the Coir stuff before it starts: While I dislike them as much as any Yes voter, I don't want to see attacks out of hand here. Debunk with facts and statistics or keep your mouth. And vice versa on Yes debunkers.

Not that there's much to debunk. I don't think I've seen a single fact from the Yes side, which I'd guess is the point Coir is trying to make.

adam

[OneRedArmy]

In many ways the position is clearer this time around without Libertas and their downright misleading "pro-EU, anti Lisbon" trojan horse.

The groups that are pro a bigger and stronger EU are pro Treaty and those who want EU powers to be rolled back are, unsurprisingly, against.

To paraphrase a US election slogan, "it's not about the Treaty, stupid". Adam I realise this doesn't sit easily with you, but it is what it is. In a democracy people can vote for whatever reason they see fit and I've seen nothing as yet to indicate that people are viewing the Treaty as anything other than a signpost for where the EU goes.

I might be wrong and the FF/FG/Greens/Labour brains trust might surprise everyone and find a convincing way to sell the Treaty itself over the next few weeks. But from a general perspective it's always easier, whatever the topic, to argue against something and for maintaining the status quo.