Lisbon - NO ; Cash for Pig Idustry - Yes Please

RobBrn · 09-12-2008 8:34am #1

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

pseudonym1 · 09-12-2008 8:43am

Mr. Cowen is that you!? :eek:

Something stinks about the pigs and there is definatly something sinister going on regarding poltics.. Maybe its a lisbion thing scare mongering tactics or sumit!! mmm ..

mikemac · 09-12-2008 8:46am

A lot of ranting in these threads but nobody is mentioning that 1,400 got laid off this week

And it could be a few weeks before they are back to work

And sure, this is an export business realy, the majority of pork is sold abroad. Tough times

Del2005 · 09-12-2008 8:46am

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

passive · 09-12-2008 8:51am

Del2005 wrote: »

every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

who voted in those politicians? and what did Irish people base their voting on that might make people wary of putting documents like that to a public vote? (hint... it wasn't the contents of the treaty)

Highsider · 09-12-2008 9:01am

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

So lets just vote yes to Lisbon to keep the EU happy.:rolleyes:

passive · 09-12-2008 9:02am

Highsider wrote: »

So lets just vote yes to Lisbon to keep the EU happy.:rolleyes:

And keep our heads above water

Don Diego · 09-12-2008 9:04am

passive wrote: »

who voted in those politicians? and what did Irish people base their voting on that might make people wary of putting documents like that to a public vote? (hint... it wasn't the contents of the treaty)

Just because you vote for a politition it doesnt give them free reign to then vote for or pass legislation as they wish. They work for us, not the other way around. Also, people can vote for or against anything they wish regardless of their reasons.

passive · 09-12-2008 9:08am

Don Diego wrote: »

Just because you vote for a politition it doesnt give them free reign to then vote for or pass legislation as they wish. They work for us, not the other way around. Also, people can vote for or against anything they wish regardless of their reasons.

well yes, they can, but it doesn't make the reasons any more valid or the consequences any less serious for the country. And it raises questions about whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

And actually, voting for a politician does, generally, give them the authority to vote for and pass legislation... It's kiiiinda the point

Don Diego · 09-12-2008 9:16am

passive wrote: »

well yes, they can, but it doesn't make the reasons any more valid or the consequences any less serious for the country. And it raises questions about whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

And actually, voting for a politician does, generally, give them the authority to vote for and pass legislation... It's kiiiinda the point

Well thats a whole different can of worms. Should only people who are pro Lisbon be allowed to vote. Wouldnt want those pesky nay-sayers ruining the party eh? We should default to our betters who know whats best for us I take it?

Voting for a politician gives them temporary powers on behalf of the people. The people voted and the politicians and the pro lisbon side need to respect that. Cant win them all. Such is life;)

passive · 09-12-2008 9:22am

Don Diego wrote: »

Well thats a whole different can of worms. Should only people who are pro Lisbon be allowed to vote.

passive wrote: »

whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

If you're acknowledging that people that know what's actually in the treaty = people who are pro-Lisbon, I really don't think we're having an argument and reckon you should get your teacher cap on and go help inform people, rather than ****ing the country over just to be obstinate.

Cant win them all

Yeah, but nobody actually won

. We're all in the same boat, so even if some of us were manipulated and confused into shooting down a good move for the country, and even if some of them (still) feel proud of what they perceive as a victory, we're in favour of taking another shot at it instead of standing around doing nothing while the nation and its neighbours are stalled and uncertain

. Think nothing of it. It's because we care.

Anyway, I hope the EU helps us out and resentment over Lisbon doesn't affect anything in that area. Maybe people will rethink the situation without any other misfortune coming our way and our friends helping us while wondering why that's all we talk to them for.

Don Diego · 09-12-2008 9:38am

passive wrote: »

If you're acknowledging that people that know what's actually in the treaty = people who are pro-Lisbon, I really don't think we're having an argument and reckon you should get your teacher cap on and go help inform people, rather than ****ing the country over just to be obstinate.

Not I'm not saying that the pro lisbon side = people who know whats in the treaty. Thats a completley black and white arguement. People from both sides engaged in scare tactics and propaganda. People from both sides didnt know what was in it and listened to uninformed people goad them into a decision.
However if it had passed do you think the no side would have been entertained for a second on a re-run? Yet because the yes side failed in their effort we're being guilted into getting a re-run and voting the correct way this time.

passive wrote: »

Yeah, but nobody actually won . We're all in the same boat, so even if some of us were manipulated and confused into shooting down a good move for the country, and even if some of them (still) feel proud of what they perceive as a victory, we're in favour of taking another shot at it instead of standing around doing nothing while the nation and its neighbours are stalled and uncertain . Think nothing of it. It's because we care.

Anyway, I hope the EU helps us out and resentment over Lisbon doesn't affect anything in that area. Maybe people will rethink the situation without any other misfortune coming our way and our friends helping us while wondering why that's all we talk to them for.

Yes but some people don't think it was a good move for the country. Are those peoples views not worth as much? I don't understand why the EU would have bad feelings over it seeing as the rules stated that if one country rejected it it was dead. Those were the rules and we played by them. Are you suggesting that the rules, that were aggreed upon by all, should be disregarded when it suits? All in all it doesnt bode well if a member country can be bullied like this when brussells doesnt get its way.

mountainyman · 09-12-2008 9:42am

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

That's bollocks we've got much more in aid than the vcalue of the fish.

Del2005 · 09-12-2008 9:51am

passive wrote: »

well yes, they can, but it doesn't make the reasons any more valid or the consequences any less serious for the country. And it raises questions about whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

And actually, voting for a politician does, generally, give them the authority to vote for and pass legislation... It's kiiiinda the point

Yes we voted for the politicians and they made the law that we have to vote on this. We voted no yet the politicians won't listen to us. When the French and Dutch voted no their politicians listened and got it changed. Who's working for who? So they have the right to pass legislation, but they also have to respect the public vote when they ask for it.

passive wrote: »

If you're acknowledging that people that know what's actually in the treaty = people who are pro-Lisbon, I really don't think we're having an argument and reckon you should get your teacher cap on and go help inform people, rather than ****ing the country over just to be obstinate.

Yeah, but nobody actually won . We're all in the same boat, so even if some of us were manipulated and confused into shooting down a good move for the country, and even if some of them (still) feel proud of what they perceive as a victory, we're in favour of taking another shot at it instead of standing around doing nothing while the nation and its neighbours are stalled and uncertain . Think nothing of it. It's because we care.

Anyway, I hope the EU helps us out and resentment over Lisbon doesn't affect anything in that area. Maybe people will rethink the situation without any other misfortune coming our way and our friends helping us while wondering why that's all we talk to them for.

passive wrote: »

who voted in those politicians? and what did Irish people base their voting on that might make people wary of putting documents like that to a public vote? (hint... it wasn't the contents of the treaty)

Your making the assumption here that everyone who voted no just did it to p!ss the government off. That's belittling the no vote by people who actually read and understood the document and thought it wasn't the best for Ireland and the EU.

Also how many people voted yes because they where told to by the politicians, are they not as bad as the people who voted no to annoy them? They have no idea what they where voting yes to, they where just told to vote yes by politicians who a lot of people in this country don't trust.

passive · 09-12-2008 9:55am

Don Diego wrote: »

Not I'm not saying that the pro lisbon side = people who know whats in the treaty. Thats a completley black and white arguement. People from both sides engaged in scare tactics and propaganda. People from both sides didnt know what was in it and listened to uninformed people goad them into a decision.

well tbh I was being a bit facetious there... I said there should be another vote because people voted for reasons unrelated to the treaty. You said I was saying only yes voters should be allowed vote, so I inferred that you had thus said yes voters = informed voters... Didn't actually think you meant that at all, and I don't think all yes voters were well informed.

But I do think a larger portion of no voters were misinformed or tricked, and that uninformed no voting was based moreso on lies or ungrounded fears, whereas uninformed yes voting was based on "the people i've elected to represent me negotiated this and are saying it is best for the running of the country. All of the actual political parties are for this, so it must be in the best interests of the country they're trying to run,"

which I think is a better reason to go along with something, but obviously it would be better if everybody who didn't have at least a vague (but accurate) understanding of what the treaty was/wasn't about had abstained.

If you don't know, don't vote either yes or no because neither of those options are a default. Yes is signing up to a thing, no is rejecting that same thing, in a situation where *something* needs to happen, so voting no wasn't a matter of keeping things as they are so much as having to find a new something... so...you should only have voted no if you were specifically and actually opposed to that particular thing, rather than just uncertain/uninformed.

However if it had passed do you think the no side would have been entertained for a second on a re-run? Yet because the yes side failed in their effort we're being guilted into getting a re-run and voting the correct way this time.

as has been discussed numerous times, if a no party was in power, or the govt/enough people to cause a referendum felt that we should withdraw from the treaty or the union, then yes there would be another vote. The reason another vote is on the cards now is because the EU can't continue as is, some changes are needed, and an examination of the situation after our rejection of the Lisbon treaty showed, very clearly, that there was no particular feature of the treaty that any sizeable portion of voters wanted to have changed.
Since there were no real improvements to be made, and something does need to happen, it makes sense to ask people again if this might be acceptable to them (only this time with proper information, hopefully)

Yes but some people don't think it was a good move for the country. Are those peoples views not worth as much?

no, the opinions of people who had problems with aspects of Lisbon and thought we could actually do better out of it are perfectly valid. But I think even you will admit that they're an extreme minority of the people who voted no in the last referendum?

I don't understand why the EU would have bad feelings over it seeing as the rules stated that if one country rejected it it was dead. Those were the rules and we played by them. Are you suggesting that the rules, that were aggreed upon by all, should be disregarded when it suits? All in all it doesnt bode well if a member country can be bullied like this when brussells doesnt get its way.

Now you're just being silly... The rules weren't "if anybody stalls or stops in ratification the treaty is dead." It was "This will be implimented if/when everybody is okay with it"

WE negotiated the treaty, and had a huge role in forming it. It is good for us, and benefits us. What do you actually want them to do, given the huge question mark over why our referendum turned out a no? Let us rewrite the whole thing, in ways that benefit us? You know that would probably just come out as the same treaty again, right?

passive · 09-12-2008 10:00am

Del2005 wrote: »

You're making the assumption here that everyone who voted no just did it to p!ss the government off. That's belittling the no vote by people who actually read and understood the document and thought it wasn't the best for Ireland and the EU.

Also how many people voted yes because they where told to by the politicians, are they not as bad as the people who voted no to annoy them? They have no idea what they where voting yes to, they where just told to vote yes by politicians who a lot of people in this country don't trust.

I acknowledge the validity of the people who actually thought it wasn't the best in my other post (albeit after you posted this) but valid as their point of view may be, they were a minority. And I didn't say everyone voted no to piss the government off. That was just part of it, coupled with misinformation and fear of the unknown.

The point was that saying it is somehow invalid or inadequate for other countries to ratify this without a public vote is foolish, at best, and sly manipulation at worst. The many valid reasons that referendums are not used for changing other countries' constitutions have been discussed at length, and we have no right to criticise them when our own referendum proved that public votes reflect far more than the issue at hand.

If we were asked to vote on a budget, particularly a difficult one in financially hard times, do you think the government would be able to sell it to the people?

or as regards the power to manipulate the people; If a referendum was held in the US on September 12th 2001 asking "should we nuke the ****ing hell out of the Middle East," do you think it would have come out anything but a yes, and that that would have represented the informed, right choice of the people and the course of action the country should take?

and I covered your final bit in detail in my other post..

Del2005 · 09-12-2008 10:01am

mountainyman wrote: »

That's bollocks we've got much more in aid than the vcalue of the fish.

There was a documentary on several years ago that we gave away the exclusive rights to millions of square kms of fishing grounds when we joined the EC. If we'd kept these rights and sold the fish all the money we got from the EU would have been nowhere near what we would have made selling the fish. The Spanish trawlers have and still are taking huge amounts of fish from our waters and the trawlers from the other EU countries are also taking huge amounts out.

That's not to say we could have caught and sold all that fish, or that we'd have got as much benefit as we got from the EU money, but we did give away billions of Euro worth of fishing rights.

The_Conductor · 09-12-2008 10:05am

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

Yes- that would be 34% of Europe's fishing waters, and 2.8% of Europe's fishing quota...... Love to know what the rational for conceding this was....... Ooops- it was probably along the lines of you bail out our farmers, and in exchange we won't acknowledge the plundering of our fish. FFS- we even arrested a Spanish trawler up the Shannon estuary last June.......

BroomBurner · 09-12-2008 12:21pm

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!! THE PORK WAS PURPOSEFULLY TAINTED TO FORCE US TO VOTE YES TO LISBON!!*

*whoops, forgot this wasn't CT forum. And no, I'm not RTDH

passive · 09-12-2008 12:24pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

*whoops, forgot this wasn't CT forum. And no, I'm not RTDH

*lowers castration gun (i.e; grenade launcher)* oh... watch it with the small text, man, I almost didn't see that last bit... nearly took out a sane person's ability to create spawn..

Nehaxak · 09-12-2008 12:24pm

A Euro sceptic might say the only reason Ireland was ever in the EU was so the rest of Europe could plunder the fish stocks around our costline with impunity, lining the pockets of corrupt civil servants in return and subsidising farmers in Ireland with enough to keep them quiet.

I'm not a Euro sceptic though so I won't say anything like that.

passive · 09-12-2008 12:27pm

Nehaxak wrote: »

A Euro sceptic might say the only reason Ireland was ever in the EU was so the rest of Europe could plunder the fish stocks around our costline with impunity, lining the pockets of corrupt civil servants in return and subsidising farmers in Ireland with enough to keep them quiet.

I'm not a Euro sceptic though so I won't say anything like that.

Oh good... 'cos everyone who goes down that line of discussion starts coming out with bull**** figures for the umphinity trillion fishies we'd have caught and the mountains of gold we'd all be living off, and ignoring how much we all prefer being a distribution point for technology and a popular business spot than working with f*cking fish.

The_Conductor · 09-12-2008 12:28pm

Nehaxak wrote: »

A Euro sceptic might say the only reason Ireland was ever in the EU was so the rest of Europe could plunder the fish stocks around our costline with impunity, lining the pockets of corrupt civil servants in return and subsidising farmers in Ireland with enough to keep them quiet.

I'm not a Euro sceptic though so I won't say anything like that.

In all fairness- it was probably the politicians who were corrupt, not the civil servants. Most of the civil servants were just happy to have jobs. Seriously though- I do think that it was a concession that was made in exchange for structural funds, and funding for farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. People keep harping on about everything we've gotten from the EU, without ever acknowledging that we paid a price, and a high price, for those benefits from the EU. We sold our entire fishing industry, and our main national resource, as an island state, up the creek. Thats the price we paid.

Dinter · 09-12-2008 12:43pm

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

Well I have to say I read a lot of the information available about the treaty and I can't say I remember reading about the "Pig compensation Clause". Of course that could be because the treaty was deliberately made hard to understand but I think it's probably more to do with the fact that it's not mentioned.

Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant section, if there is one and your post isn't just an example of circular logic which, let's be honest, is no logic at all.

We're in exactly the same position as we were prior to the referendum. That's the whole point. It wasn't a retrograde step to vote no despite what our shining beacons of good sense in government might infer.

You claim that by rejecting moving further into Europe we've, in a sense, moved away. We haven't. Exactly the same treaties, rules and regulations that were there previously still are there. It will be interesting to note over the coming weeks whether Europe will use the pig crisis as an opportunity to further degrade our capacity to have democratic free will.

Nehaxak · 09-12-2008 12:47pm

Maybe if I grew up on a farm, had family on a farm, relatives, anything at all farm related - I might think different but I don't so I honestly really don't care.
I'm not apathetic, I just don't care about farmers in Ireland, most of them have been getting tons of money from the EU over the years in subsidies and whatnot, have loads of land, houses for their kids blah blah blah...
While the rest of us had to get on with it and work where we could and make do with whatever was going.

So to the OP, don't let it surprise you any further that farmers are asking for a handout again, no matter if it's from the EU or elsewhere. When the going gets tough, they hold out the begging cap once more.

09-12-2008 12:52pm

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

Really?? You think An Irish government would have slapped a tax on fish to reign in all this supposed money we lost from our fish by being in the EU and we would have had better road's rail and other infrastructure?? than we have now not to mention low taxes?

Ridiculous.

Pardon the pun but this red herring comes up every now and again and it's over played usually by Eurosceptics that probably dont know one end of a fish from the other.

Dinter · 09-12-2008 12:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?? You think An Irish government would have slapped a tax on fish to reign in all this supposed money we lost from our fish by being in the EU and we would have had better road's rail and other infrastructure?? than we have now not to mention low taxes?

A quota system could have been introduced for foreign vessels as easily by the Irish Government as it was by the EU.

Em, also you do realise fish are actually worth money? They can be sold as easily as any other commodity. It would take more policing though.

Anyway even though I don't think the benefits to our infrastructure would have accrued as easily as they did without our membership of the EU I don't think it's beneficial to ignore what we've paid over. Nothing happens in a vacuum and the EU is not and never has been a charity.

passive · 09-12-2008 1:02pm

Dinter wrote: »

We're in exactly the same position as we were prior to the referendum. That's the whole point. It wasn't a retrograde step to vote no despite what our shining beacons of good sense in government might infer.
.

me: If you don't know, don't vote either yes or no because neither of those options are a default. Yes is signing up to a thing, no is rejecting that same thing, in a situation where *something* needs to happen, so voting no wasn't a matter of keeping things as they are so much as having to find a new something... so...you should only have voted no if you were specifically and actually opposed to that particular thing, rather than just uncertain/uninformed.

The exact same position... except for the fact that we're the only thing standing between the EU and a slightly improved system of running things, and the current system needs to be updated in some way to take account of the new size and various other housekeeping things... in...some way... some kind of treaty...

Run_to_da_hills · 09-12-2008 1:04pm

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

Precisely, you have it, this whole pork thing was orchestrated by the Government and EU ministers at a secret meeting last week, there is probably nothing wrong with our pork, its all a ploy to get our the Irish to bend over back wards. Well timed.

passive · 09-12-2008 1:08pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Precisely, you have it, this whole pork thing was orchestrated by the Government and EU ministers at a secret meeting last week, there is probably nothing wrong with our pork, its all a ploy to get our the Irish to bend over back wards. Well timed.

Aha! I've been waiting for you! *grenade*

+1 for sanity...

Boskowski · 09-12-2008 1:09pm

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other. How do you connect the two things I don't know. This is a child's logic.

Lisbon - NO ; Cash for Pig Idustry - Yes Please

Comments