View Full Version : Lisbon Treaty
They had every right to wave the triclour if they felt the result was a good one for Ireland. Especially given that many on the No side very obviously had zero interest in the welfare of our nation.
Incidentally, the few job announcements since the vote are as utterly unrelated to the result as the losses. These decisions are not made overnight.
I do seem to recall reports of there being a slight improvement in the credit agencies view of our credit-worthiness related to the vote though.
mypost
12/10/2009, 7:49 AM
People didn't vote on our credit rating, as it means nothing to most people. They voted because they were promised jobs, investment, and economic recovery for a Yes vote. Instead jobs and investment haven't fallen off every tree in Ireland, but been as easy to find as needles in haystacks. Let alone recovery.
When the country's soul and power was handed over to Brussels last week, the victors would be better off waving the blue and yellow flag. They got their result, so waving the Irish flag is rubbing the nose in imo.
OneRedArmy
12/10/2009, 9:51 AM
Saw some of the photos of the government's side supporters celebrating their "victory" in Dublin Castle last week, waving tricolours. :confused: Brussels won, Dublin lost, but they couldn't even get the right flag out to celebrate.
Incidentally post-vote, there haven't been many jobs created, or investment secured. Instead, Aer Lingus announced 700-odd redundancies, GE Money shed 65, 80 more at Technotree, Gallic Distributors let 30 go, ABB announced another 60 will be on the dole queue next year.
It is fair to assume given the constituency returns, that many of those employees believed FF's promises again and ticked the top box last week. Now, they're seeing very clearly the reality of the outcome.Likewise, I haven't yet noticed any of the apocalyptic predictions of the No side taking place yet. How long after the Treaty is ratified should I expect to be conscripted to a European army/have my earnings cut to €1.84 an hour/see corporation tax increased...........?
Lisbon is meaningless. Europe is, was and always has been controlled by the French and the Germans. The EU will go in whatever direction they want, and its as likely that will be backwards as forwards. But make no mistake, we don't count for a damn. We didn't influence anything and we never have. The next important EU decision will be by the next Tory Government in the UK, possibly a referendum as to whether to remain within the EU. Unless we decide to go back to a protectionist De Valera-type economy, we'll be a helpless bystander in that discussion as well.
The whole Lisbon farce (both episodes) was the final nail in the coffin of the hubris and self-importance that surrounded the Celtic Tiger.
bennocelt
12/10/2009, 10:13 AM
They had every right to wave the triclour if they felt the result was a good one for Ireland. Especially given that many on the No side very obviously had zero interest in the welfare of our nation.
.
Please:rolleyes:
You really think that UKIP and the British Conservatives give a toss about Ireland?
mypost
12/10/2009, 2:53 PM
Likewise, I haven't yet noticed any of the apocalyptic predictions of the No side taking place yet.
Is the Treaty in force yet? :confused:
The country was instructed to obey the government, in order to provide jobs and investment, which itself isn't subject to the treaty been enforced. Most people did as they were told. The No side said that jobs and investment wouldn't arise, and surprise surprise, hasn't. :eek:
Yet we were told, that it was our side who were "lieing and scaremongering". :rolleyes:
pineapple stu
12/10/2009, 2:58 PM
mypost, I also voted no, but you're really stretching the bounds of credibility with your increasingly embarrassing posts. Two comments in particular, if I may -
Is the Treaty in force yet?
So you're saying once it comes into force, then the apocalyptic predictions will come to pass?
The No side said that jobs and investment wouldn't arise, and surprise surprise, hasn't.
While I agree that the Yes side's claim of jobs and investment were just pandering to people's fears, you simply can't say that your counter-argument (that jobs and investment won't come about) has come to pass because, after a week, we've had no extra jobs. Things simply don't happen immediately. Let's see how things stand in, say, a year's time. By then, it'll be evident if Lisbon was the cure-all the Yes side made it out to be, or if actually the hole we've dug ourselves is one we'll have to lie in a while longer.
I'd respectfully request that you put a little more thought into your posts rather than jumping to populist, easily-refuted arguments.
* - (the first time; wasn't around the second time, but would still have voted no)
mypost
12/10/2009, 3:11 PM
While I agree that the Yes side's claim of jobs and investment were just pandering to people's fears, you simply can't say that your counter-argument (that jobs and investment won't come about) has come to pass because, after a week, we've had no extra jobs. Things simply don't happen immediately. Let's see how things stand in, say, a year's time. By then, it'll be evident if Lisbon was the cure-all the Yes side made it out to be
I know it's just a week afterwards, but do you honestly think that argument will be much different after a year? The reality is, there are no jobs, there is no investment, and there is nothing at the moment suggesting that there will be for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the other side's arguments on the issue are, and will be false.
pineapple stu
12/10/2009, 3:16 PM
The other side's arguments being false is no justification for stooping to below their level though.
bennocelt
12/10/2009, 7:14 PM
You really think that UKIP and the British Conservatives give a toss about Ireland?
What the hell are you on about!!!! What they do in the Uk is of no concern in an Irish referendum on Lisbon
Your argument was silly - I mean flip the coin - do you think Cowen and co are great patriots and all, what with selling the country down the river (NAMA)
UKIP for one spent a lot of money attempting to influence the vote.
bennocelt
12/10/2009, 7:35 PM
UKIP for one spent a lot of money attempting to influence the vote.
how much did the EU spend for the yes side - re Cox and all the young people "working" for him:(
BohsPartisan
12/10/2009, 10:51 PM
UKIP for one spent a lot of money attempting to influence the vote.
The yes side spent twenty times more than the no side.
mypost
13/10/2009, 7:13 AM
UKIP for one spent a lot of money attempting to influence the vote.
JHC!! :eek:
The EFD party sent one leaflet to people making them aware of what they were signing away. Which I never got btw, never mind read.
The Yes side had multiple spin-off organisations, multinational corporations, aviation nutters, farmers bodies, sports beaks, the bulk of the national media, European party funding, foreign leaders, and Barroso's "gift" in Limerick. Tonnes of funding and propaganda to influence an apparantly "free and fair" referendum.
And you're concerned about the political party incorporating UKIP making one argument? :confused:
OneRedArmy
13/10/2009, 7:59 AM
The Yes side had multiple spin-off organisations, multinational corporations, aviation nutters, farmers bodies, sports beaks, the bulk of the national media, European party funding, foreign leaders, and Barroso's "gift" in Limerick. No wonder it was carried two to one....
The yes side spent twenty times more than the no side.
Totally untrue, the ratio was less than 4 to 1:
The cost: what the main groups spent
YES
Fianna Fail €500,000
Fine Gael €300,000
Labour €200,000
Green Party €13,000
Ireland for Europe €500,000
Ryanair just under €500,000
Intel €300,000
We Belong €250,000
Ibec €150,000
Generation Yes €30,000
I make that 2,743,000
NO
Cóir €250,000
UKIP €190,000
Libertas €100,000-€120,000
Sinn Féin €100,000
Socialist Party €55,000-€60,000 No To Lisbon €30,000
People’s Movement €20,000
People Before Profit Alliance
under €10,000
National Platform €3,000
I make that €768,500
OTHER
Referendum Commission under €4 million
Department of Foreign Affairs €700,000
European Commission at least €150,000
Even if (for the conspiracy types) you include all the independent stuff with Yes it's still under 10 to 1.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1006/1224255983109.html
ped_ped
13/10/2009, 2:08 PM
Oh, is that all? :rolleyes:
Maybe the question should be: why was nobody willing to invest in the No side? Why was it's campaign devoid of credible voices?
As I've said before, the referendum commission came best of the campaign to me- they put the real issues on the table in a clear manner. Most of the rest was just stuff and bluster.
mypost
13/10/2009, 3:08 PM
Maybe the question should be: why was nobody willing to invest in the No side? Why was it's campaign devoid of credible voices?
The answer was money in most cases. You only have to view the budget in your last post of the sides to see the difference in available resources.
OneRedArmy
13/10/2009, 4:23 PM
The answer was money in most cases. You only have to view the budget in your last post of the sides to see the difference in available resources.
Crazy thought I know, but maybe the reason more organisations supported the treaty was because, well, more people supported the treaty.
You appear to be trying to allege that a narrow group of wealthy interests behind the Yes campaign hijacked the whole media space at the expense of a broader-based but poor No side.
I don't think that stands up at all. The No support was not broad-based at all. It consisted almost exclusively of marginal outliers with limited broad-based support. How many members do Coir, Libertas, Sinn Fein, Eirigi etc. have?
Compare that with how many members the trade unions, farmers union, mainstream political parties have.
Sorry Mypost, you're going to have to try a bit harder.
BohsPartisan
13/10/2009, 5:55 PM
Compare that with how many members the trade unions, farmers union, mainstream political parties have.
Trade union members didn't actually have a say in the position of their leadership.
Why was it's campaign devoid of credible voices?
Maybe the question you should be asking is who were the credible voices on the yes side?
Garrett Fitzgerald for a start.
OneRedArmy
13/10/2009, 7:13 PM
Trade union members didn't actually have a say in the position of their leadership.Neither did the parties aligned with the No side AFAIK.
Fairly weak argument tbh, if it was true that the leadership went against the wishes of their members, surely they would never get elected again?
John83
13/10/2009, 7:28 PM
... if it was true that the leadership went against the wishes of their members, surely they would never get elected again?
Ha! Welcome to earth. You'll find we do things differently here.
dahamsta
13/10/2009, 7:44 PM
Garrett Fitzgerald for a start.Roffle. You've exposed yourself there Mr A. :D
OneRedArmy
13/10/2009, 9:17 PM
Ha! Welcome to earth. You'll find we do things differently here.I'll phrase my question slightly differently.
Is the only the pro-Treaty bodies that eschewed democracy and went against the will of their members?
bennocelt
14/10/2009, 8:33 AM
Garrett Fitzgerald for a start.
Jesus:eek:
Again, lets be hearing your reasoning there?
From reading his weekly column he stands out as a very serious and credible thinker on political and economic matters.
mypost
17/10/2009, 7:11 AM
Crazy thought I know, but maybe the reason more organisations supported the treaty was because, well, more people supported the treaty.
You appear to be trying to allege that a narrow group of wealthy interests behind the Yes campaign hijacked the whole media space at the expense of a broader-based but poor No side.
Compare that with how many members the trade unions, farmers union, mainstream political parties have.
All the political parties support Treaties, bar Sinn Fein. It's not because they think it's good for their constituents, but because it's good for themselves. Same goes for the firms and CEOs that make their case, it's nothing to do with how many citizens support it.
Cox, referred to the No side as "Irish Ayatollahs" in one of his rallies. So what flag do his supporters wave when they win?
The Irish one. :rolleyes:
BohsPartisan
18/10/2009, 10:18 PM
I'll phrase my question slightly differently.
Is the only the pro-Treaty bodies that eschewed democracy and went against the will of their members?
My point was that you were implying that pro-Lisbon Unions were expressing the will of their members. The fact is we don't know. Joining a union is usually not a political decision. Joining a political organisation is. I know the parties and organisations on the left would have few members if any that supported the treaty so its not really an issue but unions would represent a broad base. I'm not even arguing that they should consult their members every time they make a decision, it would be impractical but that doesn't mean the thousands of SIPTU members supported their executive's reccomendation.
I'd also like to add that in this case some sort of debate among the membership would have been useful. My union didn't even consult the branch committees. Generally at the very least the parties and organisations on the no side would have discussed the Treaty at branch level but in a union the vast majority are not activists (unfortunately) and when you don't even speak to that small fraction who are activists, you're decision lacks legitimacy.
mypost
03/11/2009, 4:51 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/11/czech_president_swallows_bitte.html
That's it then :(
bennocelt
03/11/2009, 4:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/11/czech_president_swallows_bitte.html
That's it then :(
Milliband or Blair - tough choice, both right w.................:mad:
OneRedArmy
03/11/2009, 5:48 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/11/czech_president_swallows_bitte.html
That's it then :(It really only postpones the next decision point until the Tories get in and they decide whether to put up or shut up (i.e. withdraw or buy-in).
Lisbon is an irrelevance and the real future of the EU will be shaped over the next 18 months, particularly if the economic woes continue and the US recovers.
dahamsta
03/11/2009, 6:03 PM
You seemed very keen on it for "an irrelevance" ORA.
OneRedArmy
03/11/2009, 7:20 PM
You seemed very keen on it for "an irrelevance" ORA.Au contraire Adam, I think my position has been fairly consistent.
http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=986221&postcount=1081
We are an irrelevance to where the EU is going. We think we matter, but we don't. We probably never did, but since our newfound wealth disappeared we probably matter less.
There was only downside to us saying No to Lisbon as we would be the scapegoat. There is no real upside.
We are pretty much bound into going whatever way Europe goes (if not by law by realpolitik) and by Europe, I mean the big countries.
The UK staying out of the Euro was 100 times more important to Ireland than Lisbon. If the UK, our biggest trading partner, were to withdraw from the EU this would be infinitely more important than Lisbon.
In the 1950/60's we decided to move from a protectionist economy to a small open-economy and the minute we did this we effectively threw our lot in with whatever structures our trading partners set up.
If something meaningful happens with the EU it will have nothing to do with Lisbon. It will be because of Germany, France or the UK.
dahamsta
03/11/2009, 9:02 PM
Be honest with you ORA, I've never understood your logic on Lisbon, it flits around and makes very little sense. "Because we'll be slapped on the wrist if we don't" is probably the worst I've heard. I don't know why you take an interest in politics if you think that's ok.
OneRedArmy
03/11/2009, 9:24 PM
Be honest with you ORA, I've never understood your logic on Lisbon, it flits around and makes very little sense. "Because we'll be slapped on the wrist if we don't" is probably the worst I've heard. I don't know why you take an interest in politics if you think that's ok.I have an interest in politics to the extent that it influences how we as a nation live our lives and the direction in which it takes the country.
I genuinely don't believe Lisbon will make any difference to how we interact with, and are governed by, the EU.
Only time will tell whether I'm right.
By all means disagree with me, but please don't misrepresent my views.
dahamsta
03/11/2009, 10:11 PM
I'm not misrepresenting anything, you're all over the shop. You argued forcefully against Lisbon before the referendum, then you say it's irrelevant, then you say there'd be a downside if we voted against it - how something with a downside can be irrelevant is beyond me - then you say, again, if won't make any difference. If it doesn't make any difference, if our votes don't make any difference, what possible interest could you have in politics. Surely your time would be better spent watching a football match; you have an equal level of control, but it's much more entertaining...
adam
OneRedArmy
03/11/2009, 10:55 PM
I'm not misrepresenting anything, you're all over the shop. You argued forcefully against Lisbon before the referendum, then you say it's irrelevant, then you say there'd be a downside if we voted against it - how something with a downside can be irrelevant is beyond me - then you say, again, if won't make any difference. If it doesn't make any difference, if our votes don't make any difference, what possible interest could you have in politics. Surely your time would be better spent watching a football match; you have an equal level of control, but it's much more entertaining...
adamI argued forcefully against Lisbon?!?
I argued forcefully against having a referendum. I did this because:
1. The Supreme Court made a flawed decision (IMO) 20 years ago on what is and isn't a constitutional amendment and successive Governments/AGs haven't had the cojones to challenge it.
2. A sizeable percentage of the voting public don't stand a chance of understanding Lisbon. Two votes on effectively the same document producing very different results support this view, IMO.
3. No other country had a referendum. Why us?
4. I'm pro-EU in my outlook and Lisbon was a trojan horse for the anti-EU movement to push back against previous Treaties and agreements.
As for the Treaty itself, I repeatedly made the point that it was about procedure and efficiency and thats an impossible sell to anyone who isn't directly impacted by the legislative process. I also said that just because it doesn't have a direct and material impact on Joe Bloggs isn't a good enough reason not to pass it.
And finally, I said the consequences of not passing it were greater than the benefits of passing it. Its not a zero sum game.
mypost
03/11/2009, 11:35 PM
I argued forcefully against Lisbon?!?
I argued forcefully against having a referendum. I did this because....
1. The Supreme Court made a flawed decision (IMO) 20 years ago on what is and isn't a constitutional amendment and successive Governments/AGs haven't had the cojones to challenge it.
2. A sizeable percentage of the voting public don't stand a chance of understanding Lisbon. Two votes on effectively the same document producing very different results support this view, IMO.
3. No other country had a referendum. Why us?
4. I'm pro-EU in my outlook and Lisbon was a trojan horse for the anti-EU movement to push back against previous Treaties and agreements.
As for the Treaty itself, I repeatedly made the point that it was about procedure and efficiency and thats an impossible sell to anyone who isn't directly impacted by the legislative process. I also said that just because it doesn't have a direct and material impact on Joe Bloggs isn't a good enough reason not to pass it.
And finally, I said the consequences of not passing it were greater than the benefits of passing it. Its not a zero sum game.
We had a referendum because under our constitution, EU Treaties required referendums here in order to be ratified. I don't know how hard that is to understand.
The Yes side told Joe Bloggs, that passing it would revive the economy and create jobs. It has done neither for Joe Bloggs. But Joe Bureaucrat is happy.
You can be pro-EU, without selling your soul at every turn. We did last month.
dahamsta
03/11/2009, 11:35 PM
For Lisbon. You argued for Lisbon. My mistake, although I would have thought it was obvious.
OneRedArmy
03/11/2009, 11:47 PM
We had a referendum because under our constitution, EU Treaties required referendums here in order to be ratified.Given our constitution was written over a half century before the EU and their subsequent treaties came into being, in the absence of time travel, I beg to differ.
You're missing the words "one Supreme Court's split decision interpretation of one particular treaty" between the words "under" and "our constitution".
As for the rest, lets wait and see what happens with Lisbon. The next major issue with the EU will have nothing remotely to do with Lisbon would be my prediction. Whether its the Brits or Scandinavians pulling out or Turks or Icelandics wanting in, Lisbon won't be relevant.
Not sure there's much to discuss until there's some evidence of impact?
mypost
04/11/2009, 12:03 AM
As for the rest, lets wait and see what happens with Lisbon. Whether its the Brits or Scandinavians pulling out or Turks or Icelandics wanting in, Lisbon won't be relevant.
The Brits can't pull out of the EU, they like us, are ruled from Brussels now. Every piece of EU legislation becomes their own, and is impossible to distance themselves from.
dahamsta
04/11/2009, 1:10 AM
Of course they can pull out, don't be ridiculous.
I wish we could pull out, but that's not going to happen with the people in charge here at the moment. I've enough of Europe.
adam
OneRedArmy
04/11/2009, 8:23 AM
Of course they can pull out, don't be ridiculous.
I wish we could pull out, but that's not going to happen with the people in charge here at the moment. I've enough of Europe.
adamWhat was the tipping point Adam that made you want to leave (I'm assuming Lisbon was the final straw rather than the whole reason)?
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with it, if the UK were to leave the EU in the next couple of years, I'd say its 50-50 that we would go with them.
OneRedArmy
04/11/2009, 4:45 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8343022.stm
Interesting to see, assuming the Tories get in, if they do try and roll back already transferred powers.
mypost
04/11/2009, 5:19 PM
Lock...stable...horse...bolted
EU law takes precedence over UK law under Lisbon. Cameron has no choice but to go along with what Brussels says. Same also goes for us.
dahamsta
04/11/2009, 5:25 PM
He gave a "cast iron" assurance that Lisbon would go to referendum 2 years ago, so you'd have to wonder at people that would believe him.
Nice II was probably what started turning me against Europe, in particular the arrogance and disdain with which we were treated by the likes of Prodi, and of course our own representatives. Lisbon I annoyed me in light of the rejection of the Constitution, so yes, Lisbon II is the straw that broke the camel's back. There might have been some hope if it had been rejected again, but I doubt it.
We can do without Europe if we handle ourselves right. Don't walk out in a huff, just ride the ass out of it. They simply can't throw us out in the short term, not least because they don't have the balls to do it. In the medium term they might, but it's unlikely. If they do, we won't lose access to the markets, which is all they've got over us.
Of course we'd need better brains than Cowen at the helm. Or Kenny. Or any of them, for that matter.
adam
bennocelt
22/11/2009, 8:27 AM
So the Lisbon treaty was all for transparency and a more democratic way?
What you make of the never elected new foreign minister?
The Belgian president who is a well known federalist and is just itching for a EU wide tax bloc.:mad:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.