Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Lisbon Treaty is not a vote on Europe

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    It certainly doesn't work for any of the socialist organisations, all of whom are internationalist by default. Supranational organisation is part and parcel of socialism. The First International predates the EU by over 80 years.

    But the EU's structure preserves the national governments of the member states, essentially locking down a number of key aspects of capitalism and nationalism across the european continent. This is a very big block in the way for hardcore socialism.


  • Options
    #33
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hydrosylator wrote: »
    Would it not be unusual to have the same problems with different treaties?

    Not really. There are people with entirely consistent positions, who, for example, always oppose moves to QMV on the basis that they dilute national sovereignty - and indeed, that particular issue constitutes a consistent feature of the sovereigntist position, surrounded by a whole lot of additional 'reasons' that can be tied to the existing treaty, however flimsily.
    Hydrosylator wrote: »
    I don't see the logic behind the "sacred sovereignty" thing.
    It certainly doesn't work for any of the socialist organisations, all of whom are internationalist by default. Supranational organisation is part and parcel of socialism. The First International predates the EU by over 80 years.

    I didn't cover those organisations, though, and their reasoning is different. All serious socialist /communist/anarchist parties (as opposed to social democrats like Labour) oppose the status quo on the basis that it needs to be torn down and replaced with a socialist/communist/anarchist system. They do tend to reserve a particular hatred for social democratic systems, of which the EU is one, because social democracy satisfies the vast majority of people, thus removing the mass anger required to fuel the revolution.
    Hydrosylator wrote: »
    I agree with you on Cóir.

    They're an easy one....don't ask me to explain Libertas' motives, though.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #34
    thusspakeblixa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭thusspakeblixa


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    if an organisation invariably opposes EU treaties, but states different reasons every time, then it's clear that the reasons they state for opposing the treaty are not directly related to the real reason they oppose the treaty - in other words, that it's a case of say No, then find reasons.
    You're at least partly right. The reasons why many organisations oppose this treaty remain the same as in Lisbon I, but because the treaty itself is the same document. Ergo- it makes sense to have at least some of the same concerns, and more.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In the case of many No organisations, the reason behind the reasons is clearly 'sacred sovereignty' - and the reason that that's not the reason stated in public is that (a) it doesn't interest the general public very much, and (b) you can't hold sovereignty sacred and not oppose the EU itself.
    I have heard the issue of sovereignty brought up a lot, particularly by Sinn Fein and Libertas (and of course by RSF and the like). And those Coir posters, although less about them. In response to (b)- Fianna Fail claim to be nationalist and pro-Europe, yet they aren't taken up on this. I don't see a contradiction, I see myself as Irish first but in Europe, much as I see myself as from Dublin first, then from Ireland. Purely because of where I was born (Dublin).
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    COIR, on the other hand, oppose EU treaties because Ireland's relationship with the EU has been marked by a climb out of the dark ages they find comfortable. Unfortunately, again, most people are quite happy with the results of that climb (although nearly everyone has some niggle or other, which is what keeps COIR in business).
    I really wish Coir wouldn't speak for the entire No campaign.


  • Options
    #35
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Posted on the other thread:
    K-9 wrote:
    It probably is because many of them are variants of the IRA, Official IRA, Provisional IRA, Republican SF, SF, The Workers Party, New Agenda, DL, The Socialist Party etc. etc. Others would be Greens of different varieties and then the Catholic Fundamentalists of different guises.

    As Behan said "I propose a split!".

    Looking at the parties above, they don't agree on much, do they, even within their own small groups and political leanings?
    K-9 wrote:
    What about the Judean Peoples Front? That would probably cover the IRSP.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #36
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thusspakeblixa wrote: »
    You're at least partly right. The reasons why many organisations oppose this treaty remain the same as in Lisbon I, but because the treaty itself is the same document. Ergo- it makes sense to have at least some of the same concerns, and more.

    Er, sure, but I was referring to opposition sustained over several different treaties, like Sinn Fein, YD/COIR/SPUC, SWP, SP, WP, Coughlan, McKenna, etc.

    Having said that, it's interesting that a lot of the focus of the No campaigns in this referendum has been on attacking the guarantees and making out they're not legally binding, that they're just political 'declarations' etc. That suggests that the No campaigns would very much prefer to able to use the arguments that the guarantees address, but feel they can't without first addressing the guarantees. Since a lot of what has been claimed about the guarantees is provably false (they're definitely not 'political declarations', for example), that's a very obviously tactical argument, but one which, curiously, actually respects the value of the guarantees - in turn, that means that the No campaigns that attack them know the things that the guarantees cover aren't really issues, but want to use them anyway.
    thusspakeblixa wrote: »
    I have heard the issue of sovereignty brought up a lot, particularly by Sinn Fein and Libertas (and of course by RSF and the like). And those Coir posters, although less about them. In response to (b)- Fianna Fail claim to be nationalist and pro-Europe, yet they aren't taken up on this. I don't see a contradiction, I see myself as Irish first but in Europe, much as I see myself as from Dublin first, then from Ireland. Purely because of where I was born (Dublin).

    To be fair to Fianna Fáil, they are nationalist, but they're not sovereigntist in the same sense that someone like RSF is.
    thusspakeblixa wrote: »
    I really wish Coir wouldn't speak for the entire No campaign.

    Well, again, to be fair to the media, COIR are providing what there is in the way of momentum in the No campaign, much as Libertas did last time. That doesn't mean they speak for the whole campaign by any means, but it does make them the sort of 'driving force' - if you look at it, the Sinn Fein posters are almost a copy of COIR's first set of posters.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    borrowed from politics.ie

    put up your hands if this sounds familer?

    mastr2.jpg


  • Options
    #38
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    thusspakeblixa wrote: »
    Regarding the table of "No" voting patterns (this one) - just because an organisation advocates a no vote, does that make them wrong?

    Does is not make you suspicious of their motives? I expect that none of the EU treaty's have been perfect but no international treaty will please everyone or can it ever please everyone IMO. I personally find it difficult to trust organisations which have been claiming mostly the same things since before we joined the EU. Things which we are to believe are going to happen as soon as we vote Yes to the Lisbon treaty but haven't managed to come to pass since 1972/3.

    My feeling is that there is no possible way many of these No campaigners can be pleased or appeased. That doesn't make everything they say invalid or wrong but even leaving aside their long-term views they've resorted to lying on the Lisbon treaty far too often to be trusted.


  • Options
    #39
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    meglome wrote: »
    My feeling it that there is no possible way many of these No campaigners can be pleased or appeased.


    They can't even agree among themselves on most things, never mind EU Treaties.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #40
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Hydrosylator wrote: »
    I don't know, there's plenty of clear reasons being put forward by the No side, those at www.caeuc.org for example. It's not possible to tell if people vote no for the same reason they want them to, but it never is.

    After a brief look at the linked page, I'm inclined to disagree.

    It's just another rehash of the old arguments about neutrality, the supposed 'self-amending' clause and some even more bizarre arguments, such as voting No because the COFR doesn't include some additional rights, which would be impossible for the EU to uphold.

    When I said that voting No with no clear reason would be harmful to Ireland's position in Europe, this is the kind of thing I was referring to.


  • Options
    #41
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Hydrosylator wrote: »
    I ask this question as someone who is sick of hearing the "anti-Europe" label stuck onto individuals and organisations who don't support Lisbon. It's illogical.

    why dont you lookup UKIPs policies

    they are campaigning on the NO side btw


    http://www.ukip.org/page/vision
    The UK Independence Party is committed to withdrawing Britain from the European Union.



    alot of the NO members here dont bother hiding the fact that they want Ireland out of EU

    some even suggest we all go back to farming and fishing :eek: i kid you not


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    hobochris
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭hobochris


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    why dont you lookup UKIPs policies

    they are campaigning on the NO side btw


    http://www.ukip.org/page/vision





    alot of the NO members here dont bother hiding the fact that they want Ireland out of EU

    some even suggest we all go back to farming and fishing :eek: i kid you not

    please provide proof to back up what you say!

    I am on the no side, I am not affiliated with any of these organizations or political parties. I think these organizations on both sides are very bad at discussing the facts but very good at scaremongering.

    FYI, I don't like Lisbon because of QMV, something that's explicitly in the treaty for those spin artists here that would try discredit my opinion by accusing me of forming it based on things that are not in the treaty(I'm getting pissed off of people on the yes side trying to do this).I want Ireland in Europe, as we already are, Lisbon will not change this, it is up to the elected European representatives to cater to the member states not the other way round.


  • Options
    #43
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    hobochris wrote: »
    please provide proof to back up what you say!

    I am on the no side, I am not affiliated with any of these organizations or political parties. I think these organizations on both sides are very bad at discussing the facts but very good at scaremongering.

    FYI, I don't like Lisbon because of QMV, something that's explicitly in the treaty for those spin artists here that would try discredit my opinion by accusing me of forming it based on things that are not in the treaty(I'm getting pissed of of people on the yes side trying to do this).

    Are you sure they all say that or is it just that you ignore anyone who responds any other way, such as earlier when I said this:
    QMV already exists in a large number of areas. You know that right? And why are you so against QMV? Do you think it's good that the UN embargo on Cuba can't be lifted even though pretty much every country in the world wants it, because the US has a veto? Or that sanctions can't be put on Israel, again because the US vetos it? Or that sanctions can't be put on Sudan because China vetoes it because of their business interests there?
    And you didn't respond


  • Options
    #44
    hobochris
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭hobochris


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Are you sure they all say that or is it just that you ignore anyone who responds any other way, such as earlier when I said this:

    And you didn't respond
    Sorry I Genuinely didn't see that post until you quoted it there. and here is my response:

    My reasons for not wanting QMV is that it will turn the volume down on our voice within Europe, is we only have a small population.

    As for the UN embargo I was un-ware of it, bit still fail to see its relevance to this treaty or how QMV is the only solution to remove this embargo?
    if so many countries within Europe want it lifted then why haven't the European representatives put that to a separate explicit legislation/treaty? IMO, if the U.S. can ignore the UN and decide to go to war, we can do the same and ignore the us veto.

    But we are not voting on QMV for the UN we are voting on QMV for the EU. I should clarify that I am against the implementation of QMV in the EU.

    And I'm aware that QMV is used in other areas, This is one area I think it doesn't belong though. I am in Irish citizen first a European citizen second and as such I will vote in what I feel are the best interests of my country.


  • Options
    #45
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    hobochris wrote: »
    My reasons for not wanting QMV is that it will turn the volume down on our voice within Europe, is we only have a small population.
    What are you so afraid of? They're Europeans with goals very similar to ours, they're not nazis
    hobochris wrote: »
    As for the UN embargo I was un-ware of it, bit still fail to see its relevance to this treaty or how QMV is the only solution to remove this embargo?
    if so many countries within Europe want it lifted then why haven't the European representatives put that to a separate explicit legislation/treaty? IMO, if the U.S. can ignore the UN and decide to go to war, we can do the same and ignore the us veto.
    They haven't done it because the US has a veto preventing them from doing it. Unlike George Bush and contrary to what some no campaigners say, Europe respects international law. I'm trying illustrate how a veto system is undemocratic because it allows a minority with an agenda hold everyone else to ransom.

    hobochris wrote: »
    But we are not voting on QMV for the UN we are voting on QMV for the EU. I should clarify that I am against the implementation of QMV in the EU.

    And I'm aware that QMV is used in other areas, This is one area I think it doesn't belong though. I am in Irish citizen first a European citizen second and as such I will vote in what I feel are the best interests of my country.
    Which areas does it not belong in:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62202241&postcount=2


  • Options
    #46
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    hobochris wrote: »
    please provide proof to back up what you say!

    erm I did provide a link in my post that you replied to :confused:


    UKIP do want to withdraw UK from EU

    and the same UKIP are now sending leaflets to all Irish homes telling us how to vote

    talk about unelected "elites"


  • Options
    #47
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    hobochris wrote: »
    Sorry I Genuinely didn't see that post until you quoted it there. and here is my response:

    My reasons for not wanting QMV is that it will turn the volume down on our voice within Europe, is we only have a small population.

    As for the UN embargo I was un-ware of it, bit still fail to see its relevance to this treaty or how QMV is the only solution to remove this embargo?
    if so many countries within Europe want it lifted then why haven't the European representatives put that to a separate explicit legislation/treaty? IMO, if the U.S. can ignore the UN and decide to go to war, we can do the same and ignore the us veto.

    But we are not voting on QMV for the UN we are voting on QMV for the EU. I should clarify that I am against the implementation of QMV in the EU.

    And I'm aware that QMV is used in other areas, This is one area I think it doesn't belong though. I am in Irish citizen first a European citizen second and as such I will vote in what I feel are the best interests of my country.

    Hi hobochris,

    Would you be interested to learn that it's a mathematical fact that the QMV changes in Lisbon only 'turn the volume down' on our voice by approximately 0.86% in the worst case scenario, and by 0.14% in the other?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206935&postcount=4

    Nice QMV is already built to include population differences, Lisbon just changes it to an automatically extendible format, for potential new members.

    The biggest winner under Lisbon QMV is actually tiny malta, who see's it's volume 'turned up' by 0.16% in the best case scenario. Contrast with Germany, who lose out by 2.99% in the worst case scenario, and lose by 1.21% in the best.

    What do you think of the QMV changes now?


  • Options
    #48
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    How did the EEC ever turn into this social Euro State farce.

    I was about Economics at the start, now it is some social superstate world platform crap. Some USA of Europe or something?

    Jesus wept.


  • Options
    #49
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    w00t wrote: »
    How did the EEC ever turn into this social Euro State farce.

    I was about Economics at the start, now it is some social superstate world platform crap. Some USA of Europe or something?

    Jesus wept.

    Another one :rolleyes:..

    Tell me, do you think a yes vote will bring about a US of Europe?

    If you do, read this

    http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

    and ask yourself if Lisbon is working towards a USE, why is Ganley so fervently against it?


  • Options
    #50
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    prinz wrote: »
    Another one :rolleyes:..

    Tell me, do you think a yes vote will bring about a US of Europe?

    If you do, read this

    http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

    and ask yourself if Lisbon is working towards a USE, why is Ganley so fervently against it?


    Ask yourself this. Why do you mention Ganley? Do your reason for a Yes vote rely on the negative No vote?

    Why are you voting yes?


  • Options
    #51
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    w00t wrote: »
    Ask yourself this. Why do you mention Ganley? Do your reason for a Yes vote rely on the negative No vote?

    Why are you voting yes?

    My reasons for voting yes have nothing whatsoever to do with the NO side. I see the merits of ratifying the Treaty simple as. I believe it will be better for Ireland and better for the EU as a whole.

    I mention Ganley simply becuase this nonsense of the EU becoming a federalist super state whatever comes up time and time again. When in reality the Lisbon Treaty does nothing of the sort. Have you read Ganley's piece there? A USE is what he wants and has been advocating.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    prinz wrote: »
    My reasons for voting yes have nothing whatsoever to do with the NO side. I see the merits of ratifying the Treaty simple as. I believe it will be better for Ireland and better for the EU as a whole.

    I mention Ganley simply becuase this nonsense of the EU becoming a federalist super state whatever comes up time and time again. When in reality the Lisbon Treaty does nothing of the sort. Have you read Ganley's piece there? A USE is what he wants and has been advocating.

    No I don't read Ganleys stuff. I didn't bring it up tbh.


    Ireland will be fine as it is. A no to Lisbon won't change our status with Europe, as you said.


  • Options
    #53
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    w00t wrote: »
    No I don't read Ganleys stuff. I didn't bring it up tbh.
    .

    dont you find it ironic that the leading spokesman for the NO side

    wants a United States of Europe?


  • Options
    #54
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    dont you find it ironic that the leading spokesman for the NO side

    wants a United States of Europe?

    No.

    I think Ireland will be fine after a NO vote and I can't see why the Lisbon treaty changes things.

    Bar threats about what might happen, we do OK out of the Eu and why change that?


  • Options
    #55
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    w00t wrote: »
    No.

    I think Ireland will be fine after a NO vote and I can't see why the Lisbon treaty changes things.

    Bar threats about what might happen, we do OK out of the Eu and why change that?

    Lisbon Treaty will

    * Fight Organised Crime across borders

    * Fight Human Trafficking

    * Make Global Warming prevention a Priority

    * Provide jobs in Green energy

    * Secure Energy supplies via Common Energy Policy

    * Make the EU more transparent

    * Provide a Citizens Initiative

    * Retain the commissioners


    more reasons here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086


  • Options
    #56
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    w00t wrote: »
    How did the EEC ever turn into this social Euro State farce.

    I was about Economics at the start, now it is some social superstate world platform crap. Some USA of Europe or something?

    Jesus wept.

    Really:

    w00t et al on the right: Lisbon makes the EU a socialist superstate, it used to be just about the economics.
    Joe Higgins et al on the left: Lisbon only further enables the capitalist blood letting of the workers. It should be all about building a socialist system, disregarding the economics.

    It's f*cking mind boggling.


  • Options
    #57
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    erm I did provide a link in my post that you replied to :confused:


    UKIP do want to withdraw UK from EU

    and the same UKIP are now sending leaflets to all Irish homes telling us how to vote

    talk about unelected "elites"

    I think he meant links to posts by No supporters claiming we should leave the EU and all become farmers and fishermen.


  • Options
    #58
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    I think he meant links to posts by No supporters claiming we should leave the EU and all become farmers and fishermen.

    oh the EireGoBackwards guy :D

    here are my replies (and priceless quotes of himself)

    entertaining debate that was :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62187911&postcount=2516

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62188628&postcount=2523


    /


  • Options
    #59
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Really:

    w00t et al on the right: Lisbon makes the EU a socialist superstate, it used to be just about the economics.
    Joe Higgins et al on the left: Lisbon only further enables the capitalist blood letting of the workers. It should be all about building a socialist system, disregarding the economics.

    It's f*cking mind boggling.

    I am on the right? News to me.

    I don't recall stating that Lisbon makes or will make the EU a socialist superstate either, I did however say it used to be about the economics.


Advertisement