Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/09/390971-strongly-opposed-to-lisbon-treaty/

[SMorgan]

What are the views on a possible (rumoured) return of Declan Ganley to the No campaign?

I think it will have a fair impact and give a section of the 'No' camp a big boost. The 'Yes' side will come out with a lot of predictable stuff that I would imagine could easily be countered.

[Macy]

What are the views on a possible (rumoured) return of Declan Ganley to the No campaign?
He see's the No side gaining ground, and wants to hop back on the bandwagon to claim (undeserved) credit, again, for a No vote.

[ped_ped]

Or, perhaps, he sees the No side gaining ground, figures all is not lost and wants to help, if he can, towards the final push?

I don't care about his personal motives, he know's what he's talking about and if he contributes in any way to a No, I'll be happy.

[Lionel Ritchie]

What are the views on a possible (rumoured) return of Declan Ganley to the No campaign?

I think it will have a fair impact and give a section of the 'No' camp a big boost. The 'Yes' side will come out with a lot of predictable stuff that I would imagine could easily be countered.

...if he produced a loan repayment schedule. Otherwise the 'predictble stuff' any critic of Ganleys might come out with stands.

[mypost]

What are the views on a possible (rumoured) return of Declan Ganley to the No campaign?

He's welcome back to fight for the No cause, but I think he's left it too little, too late. Running a campaign 3 weeks before the vote is cast, is hard to pull off.

Mickey Martin didn't take too long to comment on the results of the Sunday Business Post Poll :rolleyes:, however the Irish Times polls tend to be the more accurate ones, and the outcome of their next one will be more indicative of where the wind is blowing.

[dahamsta]

I finally got around to reading this last night. A typical Smyth article, factual but cherry-picked, with a new gloss of valueless opinion. No thanks. The only thing this article does for me is confirm that Lisbon is about making it easier for politicians; not for our benefit, but for theirs.


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

[OneRedArmy]

I finally got around to reading this last night. A typical Smyth article, factual but cherry-picked, with a new gloss of valueless opinion. No thanks. The only thing this article does for me is confirm that Lisbon is about making it easier for politicians; not for our benefit, but for theirs.And in the absence of concrete reasons why thats a bad thing, where's the problem?

[dahamsta]

Hey, if you think it's ok for politicians to get more power at the expense of the people they're supposed to represent, that's your lookout. I won't support it.

[OneRedArmy]

Hey, if you think it's ok for politicians to get more power at the expense of the people they're supposed to represent, that's your lookout. I won't support it.You didn't say more power, you said "making it easier for politicians".

But yes, I'm comfortable that Lisbon in practical terms doesn't given them materially more powers. And on that I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

[dahamsta]

Making it easier for them gives them more power; and you conveniently ignored the last part of the sentence. Typical Yes side tactics: pretend to misunderstand, ignore what you don't want to hear.

It's not done for our benefit, it's done for theirs. It enables them to cut us out of the chain even further, in exactly the same way they cut most of Europe out of voting on the contitution they have re-presented to us, despite being told - twice - to cram it where the sun don't shine.

adam

[Mr A]

How is giving MEPs more influence isolating people from power?

Again, I can't see the treaty as much more than a cleanup exercise of institutions and mechanisms not designed for a Union of 27.

[dahamsta]

Lisbon isn't limited to MEPs. It is a cleanup exercise to some extent - the addition of an unelected president being a horrendous exception that only cleans up in their warped view - but it's one that disassociates people further from policy. The people and insitutions in the EU have quite enough power as-is, they don't need any more. If they want to tidy up, stopping their ridiculous empire building should be the first step.

[mypost]

Again, I can't see the treaty as much more than a cleanup exercise of institutions and mechanisms not designed for a Union of 27.

The Nice Treaty was the cleaning-up exercise, that facilitated the expansion of the EU to 27 states and beyond, and the mechanisms to run the EU properly.

The Lisbon Treaty is not a treaty, per se, it's a constitution and a deliberate vindictive power grab, driven by the largest countries. It strengthens the powers of the parliament, the commission, and provides for an EU President. That wasn't in the Nice Treaty, and is something I find unpalatable.

After Lisbon is adopted, referendums will be a thing of the past, and given the lust for more power in Brussels, it won't be that long before elections go the same way.

Lisbon is an assault on the democratic rights of the people of 26 states. It would only have democratic legitimacy in Ireland. There is something deeply worrying about that for the future.

I'll comment on other points later.

[OneRedArmy]

This discussion got very circular quite a while ago, but I'd pick up on Mr. A's point re the Parliament and try to get into what specifically the problem is.

Given the Parliament approve legislation and are directly elected, in what is a fairly non-contentious manner, I presume this is not the source of the problem.

Are we into the vagaries of how the Commission, Council and Parliament interact in the various types of legislative procedures?

If people are so vehement about their opposition I'd expect they would be able to articulate what the specific problems are.

Otherwise the thread may as well be locked as it just falls back into the same tired old bluster from both sides.

[osarusan]

It amazes me that, driving around Limerick, all I can see on "Vote Yes" posters are lines like "It's simple. We'ree stronger in Europe", or "It's simple. Europe works for us".

Whatever about whether the treaty is what poeple say it is (that argument is going fine without my two cents), it is ridiculous that the Govt and Opposition, after screwing up last time by just assuming that the voting public would just do as they were told, would be as unable or unwilling to do things differently this time.

[Mr A]

Very hard to make a complex argument on a poster in fairness. Both sides can only put 'soundbites' on there.

Tp expand on that, Labour in particular have done several press releases on why they believe the treaty is a good thing with regard to various issues such as workers' rights and women's rights.

[dahamsta]

The problem with Lisbon for people who don't have the time or know-how to understand the treaty, is who do you believe? You can't believe politicians or parties because they have too much to gain personally and as organisations. You can't believe companies because - ridiculously - their only responsibility is to their shareholders. And you can't believe the likes of Coir and Ganley, because they're lying sacks of crap.

You can't even believe the organisation designed specifically to provide people with unbiased information for god's sake, because it's biased. Talk about Oirish.

adam

[OneRedArmy]

The problem with Lisbon for people who don't have the time or know-how to understand the treaty, is who do you believe? You can't believe politicians or parties because they have too much to gain personally and as organisations. You can't believe companies because - ridiculously - their only responsibility is to their shareholders. And you can't believe the likes of Coir and Ganley, because they're lying sacks of crap.

You can't even believe the organisation designed specifically to provide people with unbiased information for god's sake, because it's biased. Talk about Oirish.

adamI think thats a fair comment Adam.

I deal with EU legislation every day and have a fairly detailed knowledge of the consultative legislative processes (probably the most common EU legislative process). There are quite a few checks and balances to the power of the Commission, probably more than ever, both at the pre-legislation stage and in post-legislative comitology. In the area I specialise in it makes for good legislation, significantly better than what it replaced coming out of the Oireachtas. I'm not sure the Lisbon changes impact this process that much, arguably less so than Corbett or Lamfallusy.

I've said this many times, I'm not sure how you sell this to the man on the street?

Do you automatically draw the conclusion that if it can't be explained or understood in a paragraph that we should vote against it?

Personally its still my view that there's a strong argument that there wasn't grounds for a referendum, but clearly the (unelected) Supreme Court knows best.

I've love one of the No side to get into the detail of what exact changes they disagree with. If you read back through the pages of this thread, all that comes across is vague comments about "the will of the Irish not being respected" and "too much power going to Brussels". Thats fair enough if people want to make their decisions on high-level concepts, but then it becomes less about Lisbon and more about distrust/unhappiness with the wider European Union.

[mypost]

Personally its still my view that there's a strong argument that there wasn't grounds for a referendum, but clearly the (unelected) Supreme Court knows best.

The AG gave the government his advice that a referendum was necessary. The government admitted that it was therefore best to have one, in order to prevent further legal challenges taken if it was not permitted.


I've love one of the No side to get into the detail of what exact changes they disagree with. If you read back through the pages of this thread, all that comes across is vague comments about "the will of the Irish not being respected" and "too much power going to Brussels".

I've made a number of posts stating changes or speculative changes which I am not happy with. Indeed one of them is on this very page. I suggest you scan through them again.


yes, I'm comfortable that Lisbon in practical terms doesn't given them materially more powers. And on that I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

Can't agree on that.

It's well known that this treaty is all about more power for Brussels which in turn will give them more power down the line. If the yes side focussed on the contents of the treaty, instead of terrorising the people over the economic situation, we could have a free and fair debate. The economy is their sole selling point, and this treaty has nothing to do with the economy.

In fact, if we were to run a poll on the amount of people I've spoken to in the past 6 months stating which way they'll vote, it wouldn't be a contest, but a walkover for the No side.

[OneRedArmy]

It's well known that this treaty is all about more power for Brussels which in turn will give them more power down the line.really? Where is this well known? Relate it back to the roles, responsibilities and power of the Council, Commission and Parliament pre and post Lisbon then if it's well known.


In fact, if we were to run a poll on the amount of people I've spoken to in the past 6 months stating which way they'll vote, it wouldn't be a contest, but a walkover for the No side.I'm not sure what relevance that has to what level of extra power Lisbon gives to the relevant decision making bodies.

[mypost]

Had a bit of a "run-in" with yes campaigners at lunchtime today. Apparantly, despite the thousands of leaflets available, they're not getting very far.

Whole attitude was pompous, and one of them tried to argue with a straight face, that other countries have voted on the Lisbon Treaty. I think it shows how far they, let alone the government, are from reality.

[don ramo]

im no political brain now at all, but useing the current economical climate as a reason to vote yes is tripe, we had 20 years of boom boom boom, and one year of bust, im happy with the laws staying the same, cause they seem to work fine, its inevitable that things go bust, its nessesary,

i dont agree with this at all, its says that its needed to make europe work in all states equaly, well people should understand what can happen, pick dell in limerick, they shipped all there production to poland, and at the moment that a bit costly, but of course not for a hugh multinational comapany like dell, this "treaty" will make this process so much easier, meaning more medium size businesses will be able to make the jump to poland and the likes, hell even an ambitious small business might think itd be worth there while,

i persoanlly think there tryin to say to me that all businesses that have left the island in the last year, will all resume working with the same employies as soon as lisbon is passed,

the thing i dont undertsand is, ive yet to meet someone who is gonna vote yes, yet the opinion polls say the majority are voting yes

[dahamsta]

Do you automatically draw the conclusion that if it can't be explained or understood in a paragraph that we should vote against it?You should be embarassed by comments like this ORA, it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in debate club in a secondary school.


I've love one of the No side to get into the detail of what exact changes they disagree with.Here's one, and it's the only one I'm going to get into. I have better things to do with my time.

Justify having an unelected president of the EU, without resorting to the Yes side misdirection of the issues of the current system. I'll repeat that: without reference to the current system. It has no bearing on the lack of an election for same.

adam

[OneRedArmy]

You should be embarassed by comments like this ORA, it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in debate club in a secondary school.If people aren't willing to get their hands dirty debating the nuts and bolts then its a pointless exercise IMO. Thats the last I'll say on it.

[mypost]

If people aren't willing to get their hands dirty debating the nuts and bolts then its a pointless exercise IMO. Thats the last I'll say on it.

You can't blame them for not getting their hands dirty, when everything they say, is dismissed as wrong and lies by the other side.


the thing i dont undertsand is, ive yet to meet someone who is gonna vote yes, yet the opinion polls say the majority are voting yes

The opinion polls are in "yes" press, and that part explains it. Then the polls are reported all over the world, with those 1,000 respondents views taken as what the country thinks.

For example, the Irish Times regularly ask opinion polls on their online paper about Lisbon. Despite most comments defending and explaining the No vote, the Yes side are always ahead in the percentages. :rolleyes:

Last weekend's Red C poll was for the Sunday Business Post. The key word is in Bold. This is the same paper that told the government the Sunday before the vote last year, that they had it wrapped up. Most business heads support it, like they support NAMA, despite the public outcry.

[Mr A]

Maybe it's because No voters tend to be a LOT more vocal, and the yes case is far harder to articulate.

[mypost]

Maybe they don't have to try that hard.

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/lisbonwatch/2009/09/16/yes-siders-still-getting-most-print-media-coverage/

[mypost]

Two letters from the Irish Independent. One, a history teacher from Belgium....:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-campaign-is-a-load-of-baloney-1890192.html

...and the other from the American Chamber of Commerce:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/lisbon-is-vital-to-foreign-investors-1890196.html

We're not part of Schengen, and while that has probably more importance to citizens, it didn't affect our economy. Neither will this.

[pineapple stu]

Random complaint - the ads for and against the treaty are utterly moronic. Cóir's "No" campaign has been discussed here, although they have since come out with the pink heart ads with slogans like "Politicans LOVE the gravy train - vote no", but the yes ones are unbelievable. "No to nuts; Yes to Lisbon", with a monkey. Like, WTF? "Yes in the City" with four shapely women posing. "It's simple - I'm safer in Europe" - so we vote no for Lisbon and the drugs battle will get out of control?

Given the Government took a lot of stick the lsat time for trying to force the issue down people's throats, it's amazing that they're doing the exact same thing this time around.

[mypost]

While the Coir minimum wage poster appears at first glance, mad, when you think about it, it does have some merit. Minimum wages across the EU are lower, some cases like the UK considerably lower than ours, and there are regular calls for ours to be lowered for business reasons. So while the amount on the Coir ads is not going to happen tomorrow, it could be dramatically lower than it currently is in the next few years, and if the EU issue uniform rates for everyone, then who knows what it will be?

The Yes side have come up with mad slogans such as Labour's. What jobs? :confused::confused: or "I'm safer in Europe" (we are in Europe), and "We Belong", with probably the worst referendum marketing campaign ever, a lukewarm "You Decide" as their slogan.

It is unfortunate that Dunphy, Myers, and McGrath have caved in to economic terrorism, and thrown their weight in behind the government. So of course, have the press.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/voting-no-is-no-longer-an-option-1891737.html

Well, at least they respect our concerns, before they dismiss them.

The key line of course is:


Technically, voting No will not change those fundamentals

Whether the editor likes it or not, away from the elites and the power-freaks, most of Europe are hoping and will celebrate it's rejection. The British people desperately want to reject it, the Germans want a referendum, the French and Dutch want their votes to be respected, the Czech President is relying on us to stick to our side of the bargain and keep our word from last time.

I look after those people before I look after those whose only reason to endorse it is to feather their own nest at the expense of their own people.

[eamo1]

Its relentless at this stage by the media in their disgracefully biased "reporting" on this debate.The usual suspects are there again,RTE and Independent Newspapers.


Charlie Mc.Creevey,December '08 Edition of Hotpress Magazine-"Given the chance,i'd say 90% of Europeans would vote NO to this Treaty"!!!!!!!

[mypost]

There's not much Independence in Independent Newspapers on this. They're unashamedly willing to sell the country and our constitution down the Liffey, so that in 5 years time, when the public is revolting while Ireland barely exists in the EU, and decisions that affect us are taken behind closed doors and without our consent, they can convince themselves that the decision made in 2 weeks time, was in the best interests of the Irish people.

:rolleyes:

[Mr A]

"No to nuts; Yes to Lisbon", with a monkey. Like, WTF?

Presumably a reference to the fact that many of the vocal backers of the No side are nutjobs from both extremes of the political spectrum.

The people backing the No campaign like Coir and Sinn Fein remain the biggest asset the Yes side has.

[mypost]

It could be argued that if there are nutjobs on the No side, there are conmen a plenty on the other side.

[Mr A]

Conmen? There are plenty on the No side who have opposed every single European Treaty, and yet the EU overall has been very, very good for us. Why would the EU suddenly turn on us and act contrary to our interest now?

The real con men in my eyes are those that constantly predict that Yes will bring Armageddon, and continue to do so despite being wrong every time.

[pineapple stu]

Presumably a reference to the fact that many of the vocal backers of the No side are nutjobs from both extremes of the political spectrum.
That's the meaning I took alright, but (a) I'd expect a more mature level of debate from the Yes side (or else ban posters, as I've suggested before) and (b) it's not actually a reason to vote Yes.

[John83]

...(or else ban posters, as I've suggested before)...
I'd vote for that. They contribute nothing but misleading, vacuous, rabble-rousing soundbites to every election, and then eye level ziplock tags for cyclists to clip afterwards.

[Mr A]

That's the meaning I took alright, but (a) I'd expect a more mature level of debate from the Yes side (or else ban posters, as I've suggested before) and (b) it's not actually a reason to vote Yes.

People vote for all sorts of reasons though, including which side they think is more trustworthy. People were voting no the last time because they feared 'their sons would be conscripted into an EU army'. It is a bit of a crap poster though.

Irish Times Editorial on Lisbon today pretty well sums up my views on it: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0921/1224254908194.html

[dahamsta]

The real con men in my eyes are those that constantly predict that Yes will bring Armageddon, and continue to do so despite being wrong every time.Um, you haven't noticed those on the Yes side maybe, slightly, just a tad, suggesting that a No will bring Armageddon? Hello?

[Mr A]

I certainly think a second no will have negative consequences for the country and will probably damage us in Europe. Those seem a hell of a lot more credible to me, even if some do go too far with them, than any of the stuff from the No side.

[dahamsta]

And that's Armageddon is it? Ireland will collapse in on itself in totality if we don't vote for Lisbon? Well, collapse in on itself more. Funny, that sounds almost exactly like what the Yes posters are trying to say.

[Mr A]

It's not Armageddon obviously, but certainly more credible than claims about the minimum wage etc as made by the No camp.

[dahamsta]

They're both ridiculous claims. Citing them is equally ridiculous.

[Mr A]

I don't think the idea that Lisbon will damage us in Europe to be ridiculous at all.

And in any case, ridiculous claims certainly do influence how people vote, and personally I think the No side has been way more guilty of this, and some of them have been at it since we joined the EEC.

In fact I always look forward to the first SF claim of 'increased militarisation' as a source of amusement.

[mypost]

Conmen? There are plenty on the No side who have opposed every single European Treaty, and yet the EU overall has been very, very good for us.

How many treaties have the Greens supported before? How many have the social partners rejected? How many have business heads rejected?


Why would the EU suddenly turn on us and act contrary to our interest now?

Because under Lisbon, they'll have the means to do it.


The real con men in my eyes are those that constantly predict that Yes will bring Armageddon, and continue to do so despite being wrong every time.

You're giving another history lesson in your post, which is meaningless. This affects our and Europe's future. This is the first EU Treaty which contains a constitution. That's a hell of a lot different to treaties we voted and passed before. There will be significant changes and it won't be long before we see the effects of them.


I don't think the idea that Lisbon will damage us in Europe to be ridiculous at all.

It is scaremongering, plain and simple.

If jobs leave this country, it won't be because of Lisbon, it will be because the country is too expensive to operate in. And passing 1 or 20 EU Treaties can't cover that up.

[bennocelt]

Presumably a reference to the fact that many of the vocal backers of the No side are nutjobs from both extremes of the political spectrum.

The people backing the No campaign like Coir and Sinn Fein remain the biggest asset the Yes side has.

WTF whatever about the Shinners, surely you cant beat FF for riding the country up the arse.
I was thinking about good no posters - something along the lines of having Cowen and Harney, "vote yes, trust us we are policitians"

[mypost]

How many treaties have the Greens supported before? How many have the social partners rejected? How many have business heads rejected?

No answer. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the Minister who can't count, is lecturing us on the economic "benefits" of voting for his treaty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0923/1224255061775.html

If you like, you can read his rose-tinted nonsense, however you can skip to the most important bit which is:


“The No side says that the EU will stay the same if the Irish people reject the treaty. that is formally correct, as a matter of law..."

Therefore everything else in his argument is automatically meaningless.

[Mr A]

So let's get a few things straight here- the Yes side are scaremongering and using 'Economic Terrorism' but there is credence to what Coir have been saying?

On the Greens, and I'm not sure how this is really relevant, I think the last time they took no position and may have previously opposed treaties. Good to see they've grown up a bit from the shrill, whiny McKenna politics is how I see that.

And you really think that having our standing in Europe damaged won't have a negative impact on our influence in the EU? Like it or not, rejecting the treaty will be seen by many as a rejection of Europe.

And you're really arguing that the history of the EU is no guide to what it will do in future? I really don't buy the idea that they're somehow intent on screwing us over.

[John83]

So let's get a few things straight here- the Yes side are scaremongering and using 'Economic Terrorism' but there is credence to what Coir have been saying?
I'm not sure at whom this is directed, but I can't recall having read anyone say that of Coir.