http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...postcount=1781Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Printable View
http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...postcount=1781Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Oh. Sorry, he's on my ignore list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Coir's "economic terrorism" is in the form of a question, not a statement. The government's is the reverse. The quote in my last post shows up how wrong that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
The Greens have opposed every treaty since they were founded, until now when they have to, (as opposed to want) support it. It is relevant in the context of those who argue over the amount of political parties supporting it.Quote:
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.
It is the political and business class who will be damaged. And you can argue, the way they've treated citizens recently, it's the least they deserve.Quote:
And you really think that having our standing in Europe damaged won't have a negative impact on our influence in the EU?
The citizens, i.e. 99% of the EU will rejoice at us rejecting the treaty, as they were not allowed to do it themselves. They will see our acceptance of it as caving in to political bullying and intimidation.Quote:
Like it or not, rejecting the treaty will be seen by many as a rejection of Europe.
If we follow that logic to it's conclusion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
- Only an idiot or a sulky little bitch would see a rejection of Lisbon as a rejection of Europe.
- Europe is led by idiots and/or sulky little bitches.
- Why are we members of a community led by idiots and/or sulky little bitches?
The "rejection of Europe" argument is positively adolescent, I can't understand why anyone would want to parrot it here.
adam
Thats a lie. And a ridiculous one at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
OK, so the idea that us rejecting a treaty that all the other governments in Europe have ratified might lead to a lessening of our stature within the community is positively adolescent, but calling them all 'sulky little bitches' is not?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I guess the divergence here is between those that see Lisbon as a tidy-up exercise that is badly needed to make Europe work better and those that see it as something else entirely, in most cases pretty much a conspiracy of some sort.
Raise your game or don't comment please.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
But he was spot on? The idea that 99% of Europeans would vote No is totally mad. The majority might oppose it for various reasons, but 99%? No way.
Of course he wasn't spot on, however calling it a "ridiculous lie" isn't exactly a calm and calculating way of responding, is it?
It's telling it like it is. The problem was in the original post in my view, not the inevitable response.
Roughly 99% of EU citizens are neither politicians, nor running businesses. As it is that class that want this thing, and trying (not very well it must be said) to sell the "need" of this to their electorates and consumers. Most ordinary folk are content with how the EU works as it is. It's not utopia, but they want their own parliaments to run their lives, not Brussels. Politicians want more power in Brussels, and businessmen want it because it looks good for them.
If anyone else wants it and it's that important to them, well they can turn up at Irish embassies/businesses across the EU next weekend and vent their frustrations, if the result goes against them. If that doesn't happen (and it won't), then that accurately reflects what the vast, vast majority of EU citizens think of the "need" for this treaty imo.
I think this can be solved by mypost not making claims he can't back up with a reasonable explanation, and OneRedArmy responding with some level of courtesy.
mypost has explained himself now, you might not necessarily agree with it - I don't agree with that figure, although I do believe it would be far in excess of a majority* - but it's at least an explanation. I think we should leave it there unless ORA wants to respond civilly.
adam
* Personal opinion.
Why do Irish politicians want more power in Brussels?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Um, is that a rhetorical question?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Not really, maybe just confusing if read the wrong way. I meant "why do Irish politicians want more power residing in Brussels?" - not why they'd want to be more influential there.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I assumed mypost's reference to "more power in Brussels" was that power would be displaced to Brussels from national parliaments cos he said -
Quote:
It's not utopia, but they want their own parliaments to run their lives, not Brussels.
So in effect I was asking, "Assuming, as mypost does, power is to be displaced from national parliaments to Brussels, why would politicians in those national parliaments support something that will apparently see their power and relevance diminished?"
My curiosity remains.
Well we've already got a Ryanair bin service, which FF contested we had no choice about because of EU rules. The EU has steadfastly worked to prize open every part of society for the market and we've been going that way in the realm of health care already. So what's so unbelievable?Quote:
Originally Posted by tipptops
I getcha now, thanks. I can't answer the question, but I guess one could be rather cynical and say: because there's more money in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
More power, for less work.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
The power is given to the European Parliament, giving national parliaments less responsibility for implementing the laws of their country. Any difficult question can be fobbed off with the "that's because of EU legislation" explanation.
I think a lot of the most progressive legislation has come from the EU in the last 30 years. Also I believe that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are likely to be in positions of power here for at leat the next 30 years so we are going to have a centre right government for all of that time.
The EU is not a socialist body by any means but most of the most progressive legistation in relation to workers rights like paternity leave and other issues in relation to protection of our heritage etc has come from Europe. For someone who seems themselves as a left of centre voter with sympathy to the green issues that are out there, I think the EU rather than my own parliament is more likely to bring in the sort of legislation that I look for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Back some of that up. The Laval and Luxembourg judgements, the slightly watered down version of Bolkestein have all come out of the EU. These have clearly been anti-worker. And there is really no evidence that the EU is interested ingreen issues. But no government is. Our government is part of the EU establishment. Bottom line is while the EU is a force for pushing neo-liberal policies we shouldn't just see our own parliament as the only alternative. We need to organise ourselves to change things. Voting no to Lisbon is only a beginning.
Ironically, that seems to be the source of the left wing opposition to the treaty - they argue that the EU will undermine workers standard of living with cheap labour from eastern Europe. The 'pro-workers' talk coming out of the anti-Lisbon campaign is in favour of workers' rights only for Irish workers. I don't know if that's simple xenophobia, pragmatic protectionism or just populism from the people in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Whatever it is, it isn't xenophobia.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Pat Cox referred to those of us opposing the treaty as "Irish Ayatollahs" at one of his side's rallies recently. Irish people defending Irish people's rights in an Irish referendum isn't xenophobia, it's instinctive. But it's not neglecting the rights of fellow EU workers in general.
I'm amazed he hasn't resorted to one of their side's favourite arguments yet, that we face "Reykjavik or Rome", rather than Brussels or Bern.
Call it what you like. It's hypocrisy in my book to claim to be for the poor and down-trodden, the salt of the earth and the working class (as long as they're Irish).
The results of the last Irish Times poll before the vote have been released. While there still remains a big gap between both sides, the No side have gained ground, and go into the booths as last time, with the momentum if not the figures, behind them.
How did the Pritme time debate between Ganley and O Leary go? (for us of who cant access RTE)
"I am Wicklow, I am Lisbon - vote Yes"
"We need to fight global warming together - vote yes to Lisbon"
Do the Yes side actually want to win any more?
O'Leary was hopeless and is a serious accident waiting to happen for the Yes side even this close to polling day. More spouting about peasant politicians and the like. He didn't even make for good TV as he just indulged in verbal happy-slaps about Ganley not being able to win a seat Dana managed to previously. Cringe inducing stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
I've no time for Ganley, Libertas and the vast bulk of the No side (Patricia McKenna and Joe Higgins aside) but Ganley nailed O'Leary pointing out his only interest is self-interest and that he knows nothing of the substance of Lisbon or Nice before it.
The Ganley/Dana thing actually has a bit more to it than just O'Leary getting a cheap laugh. They share many of the same views and indeed around my home town the same religious nuts who had campaigned for Dana previously were out for Ganley at the last election.
Dana, while obviously evil, isn't as sinister as Ganley though.
Which O'Leary? Mick?
I was talking to (or more likely, at) the wife yesterday about the posters: The Yes side posters have got flashier and flashier, with PR-decided colours and trendy speech bubbles, and messages that are increasingly ethereal. (The FG "Yes To Recovery" one is probably the most grating one I've seen. So Ireland will shrivel and die without Europe, never to recover, ever, is it?)Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You'd wonder what kind of message that's sending to so-called "everyman". To me it says "we have too much money to spend already", whereas the blocky looks and primary colours of the No side say "we're not splashing the cash around, and we're direct and to the point". Of course it's crap either way on both sides, but the Yes side seems to have their head in the clouds altogether.
yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
There's one that has "It's Simple -We're Better Off in Europe" spoken by half a girls smiling head that grabbed me. Apparently using words like Simple is a big no-no in everything but soap ads as people feel talked down to (which in at least one way they are being when you think of the height most posters are located). I recall an article around the time of the last NI assembly/Westminster elections concerning the UUPs 'Simply British' tagline that simply (that word again) died on it's hole. Now the UUP had problems beyond posters but it apparently didn't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
A debate between 2 complete muppets then, I'm glad I missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Yup. And the worst thing is, they probably paid advertising muppets to tell them to say the wrong thing.Quote:
Apparently using words like Simple is a big no-no in everything but soap ads as people feel talked down to
Ensuring wage rates are maintained in Ireland isn't against workers from Eastern Europe, or whereever. It's leveling the playing field for all workers - it protects them from being shipped in to work for lower wages, as well as not undermining the actual wages here. There is no hyprocrisy, xenophobia or whatever other labels you put on it earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Were the Turkish workers on the port tunnel better off under the wage rates before or after their exploitation was exposed?
Well at least Dana has won something before. And I don't mean an election. He even admitted that there is "absolutely nowhere" in the treaty where it says it will create jobs. Won't stop him and the rest of his side peddling that it does though. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Ganley won that debate, but I expected him to. Whatever you think of him, he's not going to be found wanting in a serious debate.
I have heard that in Poland there are after getting some special employment conditions for a load of Chinese construction workers on contract work to come in and build some infrastructure, etc on the cheap, and that the EU gave a special dispensation for this.................sorry no links just talking with people in who mentioned this.........is this the start of things to come......
(by the way i could ask get a link if pushed...........)
Nonsense, workers all accross Europe will be in the same boat. Saying no on the basis of workers rights is saying no to GAMA and Irish Ferries type exploitation of migrant labour. Its saying no to the likes of the Bolkestein directive that Trade unionists all accross Europe fought against. Voting no is an act of Solidarity with those who have no vote but if they had, would vote no on the same basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
To set my stall up front - I am a supporter of the EU but have had enough integration. This treaty is more than far enough and we have already handed over too much power and have lost too much democracy to the EU elites.
I am convinced they want, and are working towards a USE.
But here is my question for those on the YES side. Those assurances you have given us on an EU army i.e. we would need a referendum to get into one - one question - if we were having that EU army referendum next Friday, in what way would a YES campaign and message be different to this one ?
"Europe has been good for us
We would be f***ed without europe
We need europe
We are better off at the heart of europe, not on the fringes
We have benefitted from european membership
We can always say not to the next referendum"
These are the lines and this is the campaign that we will get in 5 to 10 years time on militarisation, so keep your posters, because you will need them
Great entertainment but not much of substance on either side. One interesting hint from ganley about ryanairs takeover of aer lingus and a meeting beteen o'leary and an eu commissioner last weekQuote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Clearly a hint of a deal...
Nail on head. Same arguments every time. In the above case, there would be no reference to the idea of militarisation, or army-related activities. They probably think sending troops to a war-torn outpost would be great for jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
One commentator said on RTE last year after the vote on the Gerry Ryan Show, that there are other ways of protesting against the government. There may indeed be other ways, but what other ways are effective? Holding demonstrations makes no difference, petitions make no difference, talk shows make no difference, even the local elections in the summer made no difference, the current regime remained in place to carry on giving the finger to the country.
Voting No on Friday is the chance to give the finger back.
How about voting them out at the next election? Voting one way or the other in a referendum just to hurt the government is really cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I hadn't thought of that. Thank god the Swansea Cork ferry is coming back, it'll be the only way I can leave the country if that stain on society gets his way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
I would view it as a bonus, not a purpose.