Lisbon Treaty

[dahamsta]

I can only speak for myself and to be honest I'm sick of repeating it:

Up until this point I've been very much pro-EU, in fact I'm a federalist. However Lisbon is about power for politicians, not on our behalf but on their behalf. They're all for it because it gives them - not us, not Ireland, not Europe, but them personally - more power, and that's why I'll be voting No.

It's not a signpost for us, it's a milestone for them, one where they take another chunk of our democratic power and pocket it for themselves. If they have their way, with Lisbon and their next treaty, I won't have a vote for much longer.

adam

[mypost]

Saw the other side's posters today.

All hollow stuff about the main selling point, the economy. :rolleyes: If you weren't aware how badly the economic situation is here, you'd be forgiven for thinking that at 9am on October 5th, there will be a sudden influx of 400,000 jobs coming out of nowhere.

The reality however is that, not one job will be created as a result of the government getting their way, the opposite will happen in fact. More will be lost once the savage budget kicks in in the New Year.

[OneRedArmy]

I can only speak for myself and to be honest I'm sick of repeating it:

Up until this point I've been very much pro-EU, in fact I'm a federalist. However Lisbon is about power for politicians, not on our behalf but on their behalf. They're all for it because it gives them - not us, not Ireland, not Europe, but them personally - more power, and that's why I'll be voting No.

It's not a signpost for us, it's a milestone for them, one where they take another chunk of our democratic power and pocket it for themselves. If they have their way, with Lisbon and their next treaty, I won't have a vote for much longer.

adamHow exactly does Lisbon make the EU more undemocratic?


Saw the other side's posters today.

All hollow stuff about the main selling point, the economy. :rolleyes: If you weren't aware how badly the economic situation is here, you'd be forgiven for thinking that at 9am on October 5th, there will be a sudden influx of 400,000 jobs coming out of nowhere.

The reality however is that, not one job will be created as a result of the government getting their way, the opposite will happen in fact. More will be lost once the savage budget kicks in in the New Year.I'll agree that the assumption that ratifying Lisbon will be good for the economy is a big guess. Its based purely on the historic fact that the EU has been the single biggest contributor to Ireland's growth. But the Government's forthcoming budget is irrelevant to Lisbon. So basically, I don't understand what you're talking about :confused:.

[dahamsta]

How exactly does Lisbon make the EU more undemocratic?You quoted my post, did you not read it?


Lisbon is about power for politicians, not on our behalf but on their behalf. They're all for it because it gives them - not us, not Ireland, not Europe, but them personally - more powerMore power for politicians doesn't necessarily mean more power for us. EU politicians have demonstrated over and over again, via this bloody constitution in particular, that they have little or no respect for direct democracy. Lisbon gives them more power to legislate withour our input. The next, which they will find easier to pass because of Lisbon, will make it easier again. A line has to be drawn in the sand.

[OneRedArmy]

You quoted my post, did you not read it?

More power for politicians doesn't necessarily mean more power for us. EU politicians have demonstrated over and over again, via this bloody constitution in particular, that they have little or no respect for direct democracy. Lisbon gives them more power to legislate withour our input. The next, which they will find easier to pass because of Lisbon, will make it easier again. A line has to be drawn in the sand.I don't think Lisbon makes two balls of difference on MY individual democratic input. Does it make a difference to the democratic process in terms of Ireland as a collective? Yes, but
1) not in any way as widespread a manner as the scaremongerers are alleging
2) Ireland having less influence is NOT less democratic. Its more democratic if anything.

Perhaps if you posted real legislative examples of how Lisbon will result in the EU making material, practical decisions through less democratic means, then we can talk but without any concrete details you're as guilty as the pro side in not actually articulating what the real issues are.

[dahamsta]

ORA, I'm neither a politician not a PR hack, I have a job and a life, I don't have time to dig into the treaty every time I post here to quote section 3 paragraph a subsection ii. I researched Lisbon last time around and made my decision; and since nothing has changed in the treaty, and the reassurances we've been given aren't worth the paper they're partly written on, my vote won't change either. If you want facts, perhaps you should be talking to the people you're complaining about above. They certainly don't have any, as you've said yourself.

[ped_ped]

How exactly does Lisbon make the EU more undemocratic?

More power is being given to the Commission. If the laws put forth by the Commission are so mind-numbingly fantastic that we simply can't do without them, why can't the government implement them?

This would also provide us with a little cover so that if the EU try to implement a law that is either detrimental to Ireland or that the government simply don't agree with (think implementing the smoking ban in a country where nobody, not even the government, wants it) then they don't have to implement it.

And why should they have to? We're a separate nation, are we not? What does it matter to us that a Pole can smoke in his local?


2) Ireland having less influence is NOT less democratic. Its more democratic if anything.

It's more democratic that we have a smaller vote in the running of the Union in itself, but it's incredibly undemocratic to hand over more power to legislate Irish Laws.


Perhaps if you posted real legislative examples of how Lisbon will result in the EU making material, practical decisions through less democratic means, then we can talk but without any concrete details you're as guilty as the pro side in not actually articulating what the real issues are.

Lisbon isn't about today, tomorrow, next Tuesday. It's about twenty years down the line, when a completely different crop of politicians that you might trust a whole lot less come into the Commission.

Now as it happens I'd never trust the EU to legislate for Ireland, but if I did, I'd certainly not let the Commission off the leash to do as they wish!

If they're making progressive laws, that we agree with, we'll let them. And if not, we won't. What possible problem have you with this?

[OneRedArmy]

What possible problem have you with this?Based on recent and not so recent history I'll happily entrust legislative powers for the relevant areas of legislation to Europe rather than the Oireachtas.

You've mentioned the Commission's role, but neglected to mention the Parliament and Council's role in approving legislation? Preumably because it doesn't sit well with your point on democracy...

[eamo1]

More bias from RTE.Another blantantly biased report giving a quote from the YES side while nothing from the NO:mad:.

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/106-01.html

[Mr A]

That's about gas prices :)

[OneRedArmy]

More bias from RTE.Another blantantly biased report giving a quote from the YES side while nothing from the NO:mad:.

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/106-01.htmlCóir were too busy saying a decade of the rosary to keep Ireland abortion free to comment......

[mypost]

You've mentioned the Commission's role, but neglected to mention the Parliament and Council's role in approving legislation? Preumably because it doesn't sit well with your point on democracy...

Can you or anyone else come up with one example where the Parliament didn't approve proposed legislation? There is no recognised Government, and no recognised opposition, so whatever is proposed by the Commission is automatically approved by the Parliament.

The EU Parliament is a 5-year holiday for failed/rejected politicians. The Parliament is a mere talking shop, where politicians don't declare expenses, make decisions on what's best for them rather than the people they represent, and basically live the life of Reilly in the plushest surroundings. It's the politicians at home who have to take the flak from their electorate, except his hands are tied as he is either a) in opposition, or b) unable to do anything due to Brussels legislation in place. 80% of our laws has to be compliant with Brussels, and 100% of them will have to be should Lisbon be overturned.

Among some of the more worrying concerns are the re-introduction of the death penalty, and the possible regulation of the internet and all mobile communications, together with Spanish-like passport regulations, in the name of "fighting terrorism". Anything that isn't covered in this treaty can be introduced at a future date, without EU citizens consent, as the treaty is self-amending. The level of power the Eurocrats stand to gain from this is astonishing, and very concerning. It's to us to stop them from getting it.

[Mr A]

80% of our laws come from Brussels?

I don't think so, and neither do these guys: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/03/what-percentage-of-our-laws-actually-come-from-the-eu/

[mypost]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0904/1224253814199.html


Dubliner Shane O’Neill has carved out a successful and lucrative career on the global stage as an investment banker and cable TV deal-maker.

He did so largely outside the gaze of the Irish media, but that could be about to change with O’Neill’s decision to step forward as a backer of the “We Belong” campaign for a Yes vote in the second Lisbon Treaty referendum.

Like it or not, O’Neill, the chief strategy officer with Colorado-based cable TV giant Liberty Global, will be in the line of fire of those on the No side and could find himself sucked into a messy debate that leaves many people cold.

He will find himself sucked into the debate. First stop: foot.ie


It was in late 2005 that I went to the Liberty board and advocated investment in Ireland and we bought Chorus and NTL.

“The idea of now having to go back to the board and explain to them the implications of a No vote to Lisbon would be a nightmare.

You don't have to explain any implications sir. You just have to learn what the word "No" means. Assuming you do, get on with doing your job.


“Board members in corporate America don’t have the time or the interest to understand what the implications of EU law are and what our status is.

Well tell them then. America of course is a well known EU-member :D, and as the first port of the democratic call in the world, should have no problem respecting votes anywhere.


They just want certainty.

Certainty for who?

Whatever foreigners want should be irrelevant to an Irish voter voting in an Irish referendum on Ireland's future. I'd rather not have certainty for foreigners here, if it means my vote as an Irish citizen in an Irish vote is respected.


We stubbed our toe in Argentina

Another fullly-paid up EU state. :D


“I’m a proud Irishman from top to toe.”

So am I. Only I want what I believe is best for my country, whereas you and your business buddies don't want what's best for my country, but want what's best for them. (and of course the "don't give a damn about Ireland" Americans)

That's where we differ sir. And in a month's time, you might just understand what "no" means.

[Reality Bites]

I think I will be most definitely voting YES, actually the more I think of it, its a huge shame we are still not under the power of westminister government, I don't think we're Fit too govern ourselves, are the Irish just too thick for self government? - the recent Fianna Fail, Developer, Banker triumvirate would suggest YES we are Thick.. so then whats the big fuss of being a Federal wing of a bigger European Government contolled by those clever Germans.

[OneRedArmy]

I think I will be most definitely voting YES, actually the more I think of it, its a huge shame we are still not under the power of westminister government, I don't think we're Fit too govern ourselves, are the Irish just too thick for self government? - the recent Fianna Fail, Developer, Banker triumvirate would suggest YES we are Thick.. so then whats the big fuss of being a Federal wing of a bigger European Government contolled by those clever Germans.
Sounding a bit like that Apres Match German commentator.........."Hello Irish pixieheads".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUYVXEf5EQ8

[mypost]

I don't think we're Fit too govern ourselves, are the Irish just too thick for self government? - the recent Fianna Fail, Developer, Banker triumvirate would suggest YES we are Thick.. so then whats the big fuss of being a Federal wing of a bigger European Government contolled by those clever Germans.

Do you seriously think Merkel, Sarkosy, Berlusconi et al care about how their decisions affect Billy O'Toole in Roscrea, or Biddy O'Flaherty in Roscommon? That's what our politicians are paid very well to care.

[OneRedArmy]

Only I want what I believe is best for my country, In fairness, I haven't yet met a voter (yes or no) who is actually planning to vote for the detriment of the country......

[superfrank]

Do you seriously think Merkel, Sarkosy, Berlusconi et al care about how their decisions affect Billy O'Toole in Roscrea, or Biddy O'Flaherty in Roscommon? That's what our politicians are paid very well to care.
Idealistcially, they may be but a lot of them would be in the same boat as Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi - they are looking out for themselves first nd foremost.

If politicans really cared all about their constituents, then Bat O'Keefe and FF wouldn't be trying to rush in legislation that will deny thousands third-level education and the opposition would be vociferously condemning it.

[ped_ped]

Yes, but the people of his constituency can vote Batt out when the time comes around. Not the Commissioners.

[bennocelt]

Yes, but the people of his constituency can vote Batt out when the time comes around. Not the Commissioners.

but the problem Ped is they dont!!!!!:mad:

[Mr A]

Garret Fitzgerald comments on the campaign:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0905/1224253887213.html

[OneRedArmy]

Yes, but the people of his constituency can vote Batt out when the time comes around. Not the Commissioners.Why do you keep focusing on the Commission? What about the Council and the Parliament? The Commission doesn't ratify legislation.

[geezer]

bailing us out or taking us over? that gormley green keeps mentioning war and i am just wondering does he work for angela merckl the german pm. Gormley looks like some war general from world war 2, come to think of it the germans failed with 2 world wars to take over the world, maybe the 3rd war is on but its economic as opposed to guns and bombs. The germans have bought large tracts of poland as well where they can supply cheap goods to their market. if we vote yes are we voting for the germans to rule us... i wonder

[Mr A]

Ruled by the Germans? Sounds good to me! Beats the crap out of FF anyway.

[superfrank]

Yes, but the people of his constituency can vote Batt out when the time comes around. Not the Commissioners.
But that's the thing. Even if they vote Batt out, the opposition will be voted in and no opposition party has come out and said, plain and clear, that they will not introduce third-level fees.

Neither side are looking out for their constituents.

There's also the case of the Cork TD who basically told the residents of one part of his constituency to f-off because they didn't vote for him. I can't think of the guys name right now.

[ped_ped]

But that's the thing. Even if they vote Batt out, the opposition will be voted in and no opposition party has come out and said, plain and clear, that they will not introduce third-level fees.

Neither side are looking out for their constituents.

There's also the case of the Cork TD who basically told the residents of one part of his constituency to f-off because they didn't vote for him. I can't think of the guys name right now.

Yes, but I'd still rather have my choice or morons making our laws rather than have moron's thrust upon us. It's still democracy.

[OneRedArmy]

Yes, but I'd still rather have my choice or morons making our laws rather than have moron's thrust upon us. It's still democracy.Are they taking away our right to elect MEPs too?:rolleyes:

[KevB76]

In fairness, I haven't yet met a voter (yes or no) who is actually planning to vote for the detriment of the country......

I was thinking the along the same lines upon seeing the FF posters. "We're better off in Europe" or something like that. I wasnt aware the vote was we're in or we're out! Classic example of the straw man argument. Is that the best they can do? Not impressed.

[dahamsta]

They also say "for the economy". Aren't we a net contributor to the EU? By their logic, we'd be better off actually leaving Europe instead of voting No and imaginarily leaving Europe*.

adam

(*I'm aware of the European markets, simply making a point. Also that imaginarily might not actually be a word.)

[OneRedArmy]

I was thinking the along the same lines upon seeing the FF posters. "We're better off in Europe" or something like that. I wasnt aware the vote was we're in or we're out! Classic example of the straw man argument. Is that the best they can do? Not impressed.


They also say "for the economy". Aren't we a net contributor to the EU? By their logic, we'd be better off actually leaving Europe instead of voting No and imaginarily leaving Europe*.

adam

(*I'm aware of the European markets, simply making a point. Also that imaginarily might not actually be a word.)They really would be better taking a back seat and saying very little.

Although Eamonn Gilmore's "people on the doorsteps are all asking about NAMA", whilst no doubt true, was fairly pathetic point scoring at a time when the parties had agreed to focus on Lisbon.

[dahamsta]

Although I prefer the Labour Party to the other parties*, I'd only bearly be able to throw Gilmore further than the other party leaders, if you catch my drift. Say what you like about Quinn and Rabbitte, at least you could trust them. (As far as you could ever trust a politician, that is.)

adam

* I used to be a member, but I've asked them for a refund of my last membership because of this (http://verbo.se/dear-senator-alan-kelly/). I'd forgotten about it until now, I've given them a week before I take them to Small Claims court for it.

[mypost]

I was thinking the along the same lines upon seeing the FF posters. "We're better off in Europe" or something like that. I wasnt aware the vote was we're in or we're out! Classic example of the straw man argument. Is that the best they can do? Not impressed.

That's the argument from them. Last time I looked, we were "in" Europe, and full, contributing, pro-EU members. We just disagree with the Treaty, and if it's a "tidying-up" exercise, sure what's the harm?

It's not a tidying up exercise, it's not about being in or out of Europe, it's not anything to do with economics, it's a power-crazy document, and the majority of people both here and in other states hate it, and want nothing to do with it.

Excellent article (http://www.thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/three-good-reasons-to-spurn-lisbon-once-again-44120.html) by Vinny Brown in the Sunday Business Post yesterday, where he appears to have seen the wood from the trees.

[OneRedArmy]

Ivan Yates tore Brian Hickey of Cóir to pieces this morning over the mininum wage claims and being a front for Youth Defence.

[BohsPartisan]

Ivan Yates tore Brian Hickey of Cóir to pieces this morning over the mininum wage claims and being a front for Youth Defence.

The minimum wage claim is a red herring but workers rights are under threat from the EU. Go to http://www.socialistparty.net go to the side panel where the videos are - the first video will explain clearly how this is fact under the terms of the treaty.


Joe Higgins MEP explained:

"Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would give the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal standing as the EU Treaties. This is said to be a big step forward which will have a major effect on improving workers’ rights. This is absolutely false.

"We show today that, in fact, to ratify Lisbon would copperfasten the ‘right’ of business to exploit migrant workers and enforce wages and conditions away inferior to accepted norms in particular Member States of the European Union.

"This happens because the Lisbon Treaty institutionalises the rulings of the European Court of Justice which endorsed the action of foreign contractors in importing workers from one Member State to another and seriously breaching the agreed rates of pay and various protections for such workers either agreed in trade union/employer agreements or imposed by local or national authorities.

"Some of the key cases where these judgements were handed down were: Vaxholm/Laval in Sweden 2004, Ruffert in Germany in 2008, and Luxembourg in 2008.

"Should the abuses involved in these cases, and endorsed by the ECJ, become general it would drive down the wages and conditions of all workers in a disastrous ‘race to the bottom.’

"With the passing of Lisbon it would still be as legal for employers, including highly profitable companies, to sack workers and ‘outsource’ their work in order to avail of much cheaper labour for maximisation of profit. Little wonder that anti trade union employers like Intel and Ryanair have not problem putting hundreds of thousands of Euro into trying to get The Lisbon Treaty passed.”

[OneRedArmy]

IMO, the fact workers in much of the rest of the EU have considerably better rights that in Ireland outweighs a hypothetical premise that may be able to be exploited in the Lisbon Treaty.

So much of the No sides argument relies on ignoring both history and current reality and living in a world of hypothetical situation and doomsday scenarios.

That the No side is arguing that the Treaty is both pro-immigration (freedom of labour movement) and anti-workers rights tells its own story tbh.

[Lionel Ritchie]

There's also the case of the Cork TD who basically told the residents of one part of his constituency to f-off because they didn't vote for him. I can't think of the guys name right now.

That's Ned O'Keefe. His comments and the brief, low reaction in our media to them says much about the warped nature of the Irish political landscape. That should've been a by-election. His position is untenable to my mind. That constituency deserve to have another vote on his suitability to hold a public office with that information to hand.

[dahamsta]

That's Ned O'Keefe. His comments and the brief, low reaction in our media to them says much about the warped nature of the Irish political landscape.Unfortunately Ned O'Keefe was just expressing what the rest of them believe. They just have more brains than to say it.

[kingdom hoop]

The minimum wage claim is a red herring but workers rights are under threat from the EU. Go to http://www.socialistparty.net go to the side panel where the videos are - the first video will explain clearly how this is fact under the terms of the treaty.

Joe Higgins -

the Lisbon Treaty institutionalises the rulings of the European Court of Justice


What does "institutionalise the rulings of the ECJ" mean? If the ECJ has already given those judgments does that not mean the judgments are already applicable with or without Lisbon? (genuine, ignorant questions)

[Mr A]

I think this is a good piece, lays out the basic reasons I'll be voting Yes.

Nothing from the No side has ever seemed other than a straw man argument.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0908/1224254065845.html

[dahamsta]

I think this is a good piece, lays out the basic reasons I'll be voting Yes.I'll read this tonight but isn't Jamie Smyth the IT's tech reporter? And not a very good one at that...

[BohsPartisan]

What does "institutionalise the rulings of the ECJ" mean? If the ECJ has already given those judgments does that not mean the judgments are already applicable with or without Lisbon? (genuine, ignorant questions)

Yes those particular rulings already exist but with the Lisbon Treaty there will be no scope for mounting a challenge to similar rulings in the future as the treaty specifically cites ECJ case history as the precedent for any future ruling. Its the difference between a law that is open to interpretation going against you and later that ruling being the basis for a clause in the constitution.

[BohsPartisan]

IMO, the fact workers in much of the rest of the EU have considerably better rights that in Ireland outweighs a hypothetical premise that may be able to be exploited in the Lisbon Treaty.

So much of the No sides argument relies on ignoring both history and current reality and living in a world of hypothetical situation and doomsday scenarios.

That the No side is arguing that the Treaty is both pro-immigration (freedom of labour movement) and anti-workers rights tells its own story tbh.


On your first point - workers in the likes of France and Germany started from a higher level of workers rights but those rights have been chipped away at since the ninetees. There have been massive general strikes in Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Greece against all these attacks and many of the big trade union confederations in these countries are against Lisbon and the general direction the EU has taken.

Now even if it were the case that these countries had fantastic workers rights now, that would not change the content of the treaty and the treaty specifically states that any rights in the charter are conditional on that they do not interfere with the right to operate in a free market and the EU's own explanation of this cites the Laval and Luxembourg cases as examples.

Now also look at the heads of state you have promoting the treaty - Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Brown, Cowen - hardly friends of the workers now are they?

Your other point is disingenious as you will know full well that the left anti-lisbon campaign is not anti-immigration and those of us who oppose the Lisbon treaty from a perspective of workers rights, protecting public services and anti-militarism want nothing to do with them.

[OneRedArmy]

Your other point is disingenious as you will know full well that the left anti-lisbon campaign is not anti-immigration and those of us who oppose the Lisbon treaty from a perspective of workers rights, protecting public services and anti-militarism want nothing to do with them.SIPTU are for the Treaty, are they not interested in workers rights?

More than most posters on here I respect your opinion (I don't necessarily agree with it!) but you are aligning yourself with the looney right whether you like it or not. There's nothing disingenious about my point, Cóir have argued both the workers rights point whilst beating the immigration drum.

Getting back to the issue of workers rights across Europe, much of continental Europe, as a result of hard coded legislation and a level of militancy (neither of which Lisbon can change) have worker protection far in excess of Ireland. So should we draw the conclusion we are fighting someone elses battle?

[mypost]

By the same token, you're aligning yourself with the government (on Lisbon), that has left this country broke. The same government that insists that Lisbon, NAMA, and mega-levies are essential to sorting out our problems.

SIPTU, IBEC and co are the social partners that the government consult on economic policy, so they're not going to annoy the government by recommending a No vote.

Personally, I don't care how abortion is affected by the treaty, but at least Coir have the will to fight the battle to it's conclusion, unlike Libertas who took their ball and ran home, as soon as the election results went against them. Joe Higgins could have done that with his party 2 years ago, but he chose to soldier on, and now he's got his reward as an MEP, and prominent leader of the No campaign.

[dahamsta]

ORA, can we not sink to subtle "looney" jibes please?

[BohsPartisan]

SIPTU are for the Treaty, are they not interested in workers rights?


Getting back to the issue of workers rights across Europe, much of continental Europe, as a result of hard coded legislation and a level of militancy (neither of which Lisbon can change) have worker protection far in excess of Ireland. So should we draw the conclusion we are fighting someone elses battle?

I sometimes wonder if SIPTU are interested in workers rights. Personally I believe their leadership is more intersted in not rocking the boat and keeping their high paid jobs. You could have mentioned that UNITE and the TEEU have come out against Lisbon, as have the Dublin Port strikers and the Coca Cola strikers.

As for who has worker protection far in excess of Ireland - most EU nations don't as it happens. Probably only Germany, France, Holland, Belgium Luxembourg and the Scandanavians and as I said, particularly in the former two, those rights have been under attack for the last twenty years. Instead of letting the EU drag everyone to our standard and far beyond (there will be more Irish Ferries type situations so it is hardly someone elses battle), we should be striving for Europe to be implementing workers rights of the type you mention, the ones that our counterparts in Germany and France used to have.

[OneRedArmy]

SIPTU, IBEC and co are the social partners that the government consult on economic policy, so they're not going to annoy the government by recommending a No vote. .I wasn't referring to IBEC, I think its patently clear why they are supporting the Treaty. In reference specifically to SIPTU,they refused to sign the Commission on Taxation report and have opposed the Government on a number of other issues where they feel workers rights are being eroded.


ORA, can we not sink to subtle "looney" jibes please?I've accepted the No side is composed of more than Cóir, but I would imagine a fairly sizeable part of country share my view that they (Cóir) are loonies. But I will choose better words to describe them!

[dahamsta]

I sometimes wonder if SIPTU are interested in workers rights. Personally I believe their leadership is more intersted in not rocking the boat and keeping their high paid jobs.While I think that's stretching things a bit, they have had an easy ride of it for the last few years and I think this is only dawning on them now. I doubt they'd be of the same mindset if the economy continues as-is and the strikes start rolling our more often.


I've accepted the No side is composed of more than Cóir, but I would imagine a fairly sizeable part of country share my view that they (Cóir) are loonies. But I will choose better words to describe them!You can call Coir what you want, within reason, my problem is the implication that if someone agrees with one or more of their opinions, they're looney by association. It's a weak debating tactic and to be perfectly frank beneath you. Let's try to keep debate here above the level of the Dail.

adam

[bennocelt]

SIPTU are for the Treaty, are they not interested in workers rights?
?

Really? :p