UKIP for one spent a lot of money attempting to influence the vote.
Printable View
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:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
The yes side spent twenty times more than the no side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
JHC!! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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:
No wonder it was carried two to one....Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Totally untrue, the ratio was less than 4 to 1:Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I make that 2,743,000Quote:
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 €768,500Quote:
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
Even if (for the conspiracy types) you include all the independent stuff with Yes it's still under 10 to 1.Quote:
OTHER
Referendum Commission under €4 million
Department of Foreign Affairs €700,000
European Commission at least €150,000
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...255983109.html
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Crazy thought I know, but maybe the reason more organisations supported the treaty was because, well, more people supported the treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
Trade union members didn't actually have a say in the position of their leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Maybe the question you should be asking is who were the credible voices on the yes side?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Garrett Fitzgerald for a start.
Neither did the parties aligned with the No side AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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?
Ha! Welcome to earth. You'll find we do things differently here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Roffle. You've exposed yourself there Mr A. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Expand?
I'll phrase my question slightly differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Is the only the pro-Treaty bodies that eschewed democracy and went against the will of their members?
Jesus:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...ows_bitte.html
That's it then :(
Milliband or Blair - tough choice, both right w.................:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
You seemed very keen on it for "an irrelevance" ORA.
Au contraire Adam, I think my position has been fairly consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
http://foot.ie/forums/showpost.php?p...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
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.
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
I argued forcefully against Lisbon?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.
For Lisbon. You argued for Lisbon. My mistake, although I would have thought it was obvious.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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
What was the tipping point Adam that made you want to leave (I'm assuming Lisbon was the final straw rather than the whole reason)?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
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.
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.
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.
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
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: