Why hate Libertas

RandomName2

There is a hell of a lot about Libertas on this forum, but I have attempted to produce an exhaustive list of the arguments made against them

1. They don't show where their funds come from
2. They are a pan-European Party
3. They oppose Lisbon
4. Ganley is rich
5. They are affiliated to private companies
6. They have shady links to the US military
7. Ganley is not really Irish
8. They are evil
9. They know nothing
10. Their actual motives are undisclosed
11. They are a manipulative, clever, organisation, directed by a single will
12. They are right wing
13. They have no policies
14. They look like the PDs

I know a lot of this is just fluff, mixed in with general concerns. Nonsense attacks are 3. 4. 8. 9. 12. and 14. and don't really merit any discussion (the fact that 3. 4. and 12. are patently obvious is not the point).

RandomName2

2. There are other pan-European parties, you know.

5. This seems to be a genuine problem, does anyone actually have any details?

6. This is pretty much fluff as well, unfortunately. There does not seem to be any concrete evidence to suggest CIA manipulation, and even if this was the case, in practice it changes little. What is in question is their political outlook and their funding.

7. This is a local issue. He is legally Irish, but hasn't lived in Ireland for at least 20 years.

10. The big question is why would a rich entreperneur put his neck on the line for no apparent financial gain. Most people seem to be cynical enough to believe that he has no actual ideology.

11. There certainly is a will-to-power thing with Ganley, hence the comparrisons with Michael McDowell. This is to be expected, however, with a newly formed party. The fact that Ganley is so uncharismatic doesn't help though.

13. Again, this is back to 10. The fact that any MEP standing for election in Ireland will say no more than the platitudes of 'I am for job-creation' or 'I want Ireland to be at the heart of Europe' is naturall enough because they don't controll the pan-European parties they affiliate themselves to. Libertas' actual policies, whilst clear enough, are too flimsy for a party's entire manifesto - hence the implication that there is an ulterior motive (or that they know nothing, or both... yawn).

PopeBuckfastXVI

15. They are slimy PR hiring, populist vote seeking, lying, flip flopping, disjointed, undemocratic, platitude slinging, semi racist, god bothering, greedy, anti Europe, pro NATO, power hungry policyless mountebanks.

And that's enough for me...

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

15. They are slimy PR hiring, populist vote seeking, lying, flip flopping, disjointed, undemocratic, platitude slinging, semi racist, god bothering, greedy, anti Europe, pro NATO, power hungry policyless mountebanks.

And that's enough for me...

I think that's number 8.

What did you say about NATO?

Oafley Jones

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

15. They are slimy PR hiring, populist vote seeking, lying, flip flopping, disjointed, undemocratic, platitude slinging, semi racist, god bothering, greedy, anti Europe, pro NATO, power hungry policyless mountebanks.

And that's enough for me...

That's pretty much my opinion of them as well. But you have to acknowledge their good points - e.g. Caroline Simons, for pure comedy value.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think that's number 8.

What did you say about NATO?

Some people would think some or all of those things were good, not evil.

I say they are pro NATO, Ganley makes his money from NATO agencies, and indeed proposed Libertas be formed in the FPRI Journal, which is from an Americentric, pro NATO US Right Wing think tank.

Scofflaw

16. They've actually managed to lower the tone of politicial debate in Ireland, something I wouldn't previously have thought possible.

17. If successful, they essentially put the European Parliament in the pocket of one man.

18. They are highly dishonest - it's probably their main distinguishing characteristic.


cordially,
Scofflaw

bladespin

Closing borders at this stage - just a bit far-right
Lead by one - just a bit of a dictatorship
Goal to lead all of europe - emm, think I've heard this stuff before in history class :eek:

RandomName2

To lead all of Europe is the goal of every pan-European party. This wont happen as not everyone will agree with their policies (the same with Libertas).

At least with Libertas it is a direct vote to a Pan-European party, as opposed to the roundabout manner in which a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the Nordic Green or whatever.

RandomName2

Perhaps because they have the potential to be powerful - this is the real reason why they are hated. The socialists and Sinn Fein are ignored to a large part because they look weaker.

And this power would be directed against the extant political mainframe in Brussels, for whatever reason. That's why they are hated.

As far as I know there isn't a single party on Earth which doesn't have a leader. As long as Ganley doesn't become EU president post-lisbon (which is unlikely :P) I won't be too concerned.

... unless all that guff about the EU having no real legislative power is untrue. Of course, many Libertas detractors would have to contradict themselves in relation to the potential 'threat' posed by Libertas in Parliament in that regard. But you cannot argue that the EU is soft politics and simultaneously point a shaking fingue at the potential disaster of electing what you are terming as a neo-fascist movement.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

... unless all that guff about the EU having no real legislative power is untrue.

Where did you pull that straw man out of?

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Perhaps because they have the potential to be powerful - this is the real reason why they are hated.

No, Ganley himself is the reason they're hated; he's a despicable, obnoxious liar. He is the most un-personable public figure I've ever seen in existence.

BTW, if you're affilliated with them (or anyone), I think the rules are that you should make that affilliation known. (Apologies for what looks like backseat modding, Scofflaw and OB and nesf, but this guy is really starting to annoy).

ionix5891

why love them?

hate is such a "negative" word

Hitman Actual wrote: »

BTW, if you're affilliated with them (or anyone), I think the rules are that you should make that affilliation known. (Apologies for what looks like backseat modding, Scofflaw and OB and nesf, but this guy is really starting to annoy).

I hope im not breaking any rules, if so please feel free to delete this and warn me, but its correct to note that all his posts are Libertas related, seems raising controversy and free publicity is an aim here of a certain political party who are known to masterfully use the internet for political gain

.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

No, Ganley himself is the reason they're hated; he's a despicable, obnoxious liar. He is the most un-personable public figure I've ever seen in existence.

BTW, if you're affilliated with them (or anyone), I think the rules are that you should make that affilliation known. (Apologies for what looks like backseat modding, Scofflaw and OB and nesf, but this guy is really starting to annoy).

Ganley is really uncharismatic. Mind you, your hyperbole is ott.

I was at one stage associated with Fianna Fail, but that was a long while back, but I am currently a free, 'undecided' vote. Oh and ban me if you like for me being annoying, sure .

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is a hell of a lot about Libertas on this forum, but I have attempted to produce an exhaustive list of the arguments made against them

1. They don't show where their funds come from
2. They are a pan-European Party
3. They oppose Lisbon
4. Ganley is rich
5. They are affiliated to private companies
6. They have shady links to the US military
7. Ganley is not really Irish
8. They are evil
9. They know nothing
10. Their actual motives are undisclosed
11. They are a manipulative, clever, organisation, directed by a single will
12. They are right wing
13. They have no policies
14. They look like the PDs

I know a lot of this is just fluff, mixed in with general concerns. Nonsense attacks are 3. 4. 8. 9. 12. and 14. and don't really merit any discussion (the fact that 3. 4. and 12. are patently obvious is not the point).

I was a PD supporter, and I am a liberal (economic and social) which would place me to the right on economics and to the left on social issues. Any of the points you have made which concern are minor, if that's all that concerned me, I wouldn't be overly concerned. The number one reason I hate Libertas is they tell flat out bare faced lies. Most politicians bend the truth a little, some are even caught lying, but never in history have I seen anything as brazen as that which Libertas spouts. They don't just lie about things they might be able to get away with, they don't just lie where they think the truth will never be known, they lie about cold hard facts and they can be conclusively proven incorrect with 2 minutes of research. If this is the shape of the future of European politics where political parties don't have to pay any attention to what is factually true and can just spin their own fairytale then we are screwed, politics = religion.

kevteljeur

There is an endearing honesty in their willingness to not just bend the truth, but break it and discard it, in the interests of getting a vote. It's frightening, but mostly because with the status quo players, you can't really be sure about what it true, what is not, and what is a 'commonly-held belief' (or, it's true because everyone else believes it too).



.

Euro_Kraut

Gosh we're going to miss them when they are gone lads. They were good for a laugh right through this campaign and we might still have a few giggles if Lech Walesa turns up for their final rally and backs the Lisbon Treaty!

Maybe its a form of political Stockholm syndrome but I'll kinda be sad when they fall about 90 seats short of the 100 Ganley is promising us.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

I was a PD supporter, and I am a liberal (economic and social) which would place me to the right on economics and to the left on social issues. Any of the points you have made which concern are minor, if that's all that concerned me, I wouldn't be overly concerned. The number one reason I hate Libertas is they tell flat out bare faced lies. Most politicians bend the truth a little, some are even caught lying, but never in history have I seen anything as brazen as that which Libertas spouts. They don't just lie about things they might be able to get away with, they don't just lie where they think the truth will never be known, they lie about cold hard facts and they can be conclusively proven incorrect with 2 minutes of research. If this is the shape of the future of European politics where political parties don't have to pay any attention to what is factually true and can just spin their own fairytale then we are screwed, politics = religion.

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

RandomName2

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Gosh we're going to miss them when they are gone lads. They were good for a laugh right through this campaign and we might still have a few giggles if Lech Walesa turns up for their final rally and backs the Lisbon Treaty!

Maybe its a form of political Stockholm syndrome but I'll kinda be sad when they fall about 90 seats short of the 100 Ganley is promising us.

Yeah, after that it will be just back to bashing the Irish electorate for being dumb when it comes to Lisbon II.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

I know a lot of this is just fluff, mixed in with general concerns. Nonsense attacks are 3. 4. 8. 9. 12. and 14. and don't really merit any discussion (the fact that 3. 4. and 12. are patently obvious is not the point).

Well if you're a left winger 12 and 14 would be pretty much to the fore, when you think about it. I believe Scofflaw pretty much covered the rest there. As regards the fear mongering and waffle - you expect that from certain parts in this country, because thats what they honestly believe. However I'm not convinced that an intelligent and travelled man like Ganley does, which means I don't rate him very highly in the honesty department.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ganley is really uncharismatic. Mind you, your hyperbole is ott.

I was at one stage associated with Fianna Fail, but that was a long while back, but I am currently a free, 'undecided' vote. Oh and ban me if you like for me being annoying, sure .

You're a free 'undecided' vote who just happens to support Libertas in all your posts on boards.ie, and to post on no other topic. Unlikely, I fear. The internet is surprisingly full of pro-Libertas things being said by "free undecided voters", who have magically popped up during the course of the election - much as 'unaffiliated' 'concerned citizens' popped up making YouTube No videos during the referendum, such as Sean Ganley.

By the way, this isn't personal as such. Were it not for Libertas' really really extensive astroturf record, and the way that known supporters and affiliates of LIbertas happily pose as 'undecided' or 'neutral' voices, I'd have no problem taking your claim at face value. As it is, however, I am inclined to favour the view that you are essentially a Libertas online canvasser based on your behaviour in forum. In particular, the description of yourself is exactly the one that is offered as a cover by people who are affiliated with Libertas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're a free 'undecided' vote who just happens to support Libertas in all your posts on boards.ie, and to post on no other topic. Unlikely, I fear. The internet is surprisingly full of pro-Libertas things being said by "free undecided voters", who have magically popped up during the course of the election - much as 'unaffiliated' 'concerned citizens' popped up making YouTube No videos during the referendum, such as Sean Ganley.

By the way, this isn't personal as such. Were it not for Libertas' really really extensive astroturf record, and the way that known supporters and affiliates of LIbertas happily pose as 'undecided' or 'neutral' voices, I'd have no problem taking your claim at face value. As it is, however, I am inclined to favour the view that you are essentially a Libertas online canvasser based on your behaviour in forum. In particular, the description of yourself is exactly the one that is offered as a cover by people who are affiliated with Libertas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay, claim I'm a member of Libertas if you like. Who knows, I might be Ganley himself in cunning disguise . I'm just interested in uncovering the truth of this issue, and I'm actually not biased (unlike you, who, being a moderator, makes me raise an eyebrow). In truth I am pissed off at how the issue has been handled by both sides of the debate, but as far as I can see, no matter how much people scream about Libertas' falsehood, the majority of publicity is accorded to the media and politicans which are pro-Lisbon (although this might be due to their very weight of numbers).

And yes, I have 'magically' popped up before an election. Odd that, huh? I like that bit about that being my 'cover' - but even if I was a member of Libertas, god forbid, it doesn't actually change the validity of my arguments (ad hominem attacks and all). Maybe you should put up a sticky saying that it's prefferable to be left-wing to post on this forum.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

I suppose this would be a candidate for the most objective factually incorrect statement from Libertas. It was one of their 8 reasons for voting no to Lisbon the first time around, but it is by no means the only.

2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

Completely wrong.The council at the moment has a QMV system which give each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizens vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizens.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

I suppose this would be a candidate for the most objective factually incorrect statement from Libertas. It was one of their 8 reasons for voting no to Lisbon the first time around, but it is by no means the only.



Completely wrong.The council at the moment has a QMV system which give each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizens vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizens.

I don't quite see how it is false, although you could agree with the change itself.

As far as I was aware Germany's vote goes from 25 to 50, and Ireland's from 8 to 3. Is this wrong?

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't quite see how it is false, although you could agree with the change itself.

When then you are blind. Irelands vote is 3.75% in one criteria and 0.8% in another. The mean being roughly 2%. That is patently clear and stating our vote is decreased to 0.8% is a bare faced blatant lie.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As far as I was aware Germany's vote goes from 25 to 50, and Ireland's from 8 to 3. Is this wrong?

I'm not even following you now 25 to 50 and 8 to 3 what? percent? Where are those figures coming from?

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

When then you are blind. Irelands vote is 3.75% in one criteria and 0.8% in another. The mean being roughly 2%. That is patently clear and stating our vote is decreased to 0.8% is a bare faced blatant lie.



I'm not even following you now 25 to 50 and 8 to 3 what? percent? Where are those figures coming from?

No, I am not talking percentages, but number of seats in parliament (I think that the Irish number has already been reduced from 8 to 7, mind you)

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

You want to try and argue in this thread?

Also, on the voting weights, it has been shown using computer simulations both here (by ConorIRL, iirc) and on politics.ie that with the new QMV system Ireland gains some influence over medium-size states (e.g. with populations of ~10 million), but loses out slightly to bigger nations like Germany. In fact, the smallest nations benefit most from the new system (Malta being the big winner, iirc).

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, I am not talking percentages, but number of seats in parliament (I think that the Irish number has already been reduced from 8 to 7, mind you)

Ireland has been reduced from 13 to 12 along with reductions for almost every other country because the size of the parliament itself is being reduced and capped. It was 784 and it is being reduced and capped and 750 + the president. It's not a reduction per-see since our relative proportion of parliamentarians will be roughly maintained. And besides we're discussing the council not the parliament, it's confusing if you jump from one to the other without stating.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, I am not talking percentages, but number of seats in parliament (I think that the Irish number has already been reduced from 8 to 7, mind you)

From 13 to 12, which is why Dublin is a three-seater now - happens under Nice or Lisbon (which is why it's happening now). Never mind that MEPs don't vote on national lines anyway, but according to their Parliament grouping and their consciences - the latter being rather more than we can say for our TDs.

regards,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Incidentally, is everything that COIR say false as well?

http://www.lisbonvote.com/

sink

Also want to add that Germany's MEP's will also be reduced from 99 to 96 under Lisbon. I forgot to mention that little fact in my original reply.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote:

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

Also, here's their full list of reasons to vote No. Do you have the ability to argue that any of them are true?

Edit to add: Your use of the phrase "Note - concrete" does indeed make me believe that you are a Libertas shill.

Edit 2: On a re-read of those Libertas' reasons, a couple of them are true, but the more important claims can be easily proven to be incorrect.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well from a quick glance at their website here's one...

'33% - the percentage of time we will have no voice on the commission'

This is not true. Under lisbon, as is the current case Ireland has a voice on the commission 0% of the time.

Commissioners represent and speak for the Union, not the nations. They're the only branch of the EU which does. In fact if a Commissioner used his 'voice' in favour of his Nation he could be removed.

Either COIR doesn't understand the EU, or they do and they are deliberately misleading people.

Either way they should be ignored.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

Incidentally, is everything that COIR say false as well?

http://www.lisbonvote.com/

I don't have time to refute every point on their website but after a quick browse I can say with confidence that there is very little truth in most of their claims. If you have particular issue with one or two I can address them but i'm not going to spend all afternoon researching and writing. It's sunny outside and i'm to go wash my car in a bit.

turgon

Coirs short guide to Lisbon

1 - The EU already has this right to "undermine" Irish law. What would be the point in being in the EU if we could just overrule every law they passed?
2 - Untrue, tax harmonisation has to be decided unanimously, asfaik?
3 - True, we will have coherent EU immigration policy. Saying we dont have any "say" in this is untrue. Coir act as if we have no representation in EU.
4 - Utter utter bollox. There is no "voting weight" in parliament ffs.
5 - We were voting on the Charter of Rights, so I dont see their point. Either way its a neo-con point they attempt to make.
7 - Oh please, the EU is not a federal state. Once again Coir exhibits its poor understanding of the EU. Also apparently the decision makers such as the council of ministers are not elected. Do they realise Brian Cowen is a member? Or do they honestly think he wasnt elected?
8 - Once again having a commissioner does not give Ireland "a voice," commissioners are legally obliged to act in the EU interests.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

2 - Untrue, tax harmonisation has to be decided unanimously, asfaik?

Insofar as the EU has powers over taxation (and it has none over direct taxation) they are unanimous if they are applied at an all-EU level. The argument here is that CCCTB will be introduced via 'enhanced cooperation', which would allow a group of member states to harmonise their tax base (it's not about the rates).

However, it has nothing to do with Lisbon - the necessary capabilities for CCCTB have been with the Council (not the Commission) since Maastricht, while enhanced cooperation was introduced at Nice. Despite that, CCCTB has been on the drawing board since 2001, and it remains firmly lodged there despite all the fearmongering.

Anyone claiming that tax harmonisation is first made possible in Lisbon should be asked a simple question - what article in Lisbon makes it possible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

A little one but one that is very easy to follow and a personnal favourite of mine (I made a brief youtube video on it)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60045438&postcount=87


Libertas accuse British MEP's of voting themselves a 27% pay rise, when the vote they took was in 2005, where at the time the amount they agreed on would have brought their earnings down, but because of the sterling going to crap the pay scale changed naturally via exchange rates.


My hate for libertas comes from primarily the same reason as Sink, I wouldnt consider myself an intelligent person, so the fact that 2 minutes research by myself shows gaping holes in their policy is pretty damning in how much they outright lie. Also I have personnally met Caroline Simons and have found her to be one of the most unlikable people as a person and her political policies I have ever met (and I have met a fair few Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein politicians via work.)

but no, the blatant lieing is the primary issue that drives me up the wall about them. They shout for democracy, but as was shown the other night, they do not even have democratic system in their party, its rather horrific.

molloyjh

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

1. Lisbon will allow the EU to dictate our Corporate Tax:
Corporate Tax is a form of direct taxation. Direct taxation is not a competency of the EU. Therefore they cannot pass any legislation on it. Lisbon does not change that. Libertas argue that there is a back-door through the ECJ however the only thing the ECJ would be rule on is in the event that companies from different member states are being charged different rate in Ireland. The EU is built on partnership and equality in these matters and the ECJ would be able to tell us to charge the same rate across the board. They could not tell us what rate that should be and cannot interfere in corporate tax in any other way.
Tax Harmonisation is something the French and Germans are after. However to change the competancies of the EU would require unanimity and the English and ourselves are firmly opposed, as well as Malta, Sweden and a few of the Eastern European countries. It's fairly well accepted that, although the big 2 founding states want it, it's not going to happen any time soon, if at all.
This is an example of Lisbon's half-truth misrepresentation approach.

2. Lisbons "self-amending" article will allow the EU to modify the treaty without it going for a referendum here:
This is another example of the misrepresetation they are so good at. To make any changes in the EU at the moment requires another Treaty. This would also be the case in future should no modifications be made in this area. So it is possible that we could end up with dozens of treaties all referring to one another and making understanding the EU all but impossible.
So the "self-amending" article allows the EU to modify the existing Treaty. We would not hold a referendum on the Treaty itself in this case, however for the change to be passed in Brussels it must be ratified by all member states. Where referenda would be required here we would still get it, but on the change and not the Treaty.
When you look at Lisbon as it is and the actual Constitutional change we are voting on, we are voting on a minute part of it. This article would allow other changes that do not really require referenda to go ahead, therefore increasing the EUs effeciency.

3. 80% of our laws come from Brussels:
This figure was taken from Germany in 2004. The 80% is true as long as you ignore the 3,000+ statutory orders in Germany that year, which would actually take that figure to 21% (or thereabouts)....thanks to Scofflaw for the details in another Libertas thread.

4. Irelands voting weight will be halfed in Europe:
This has been dealt with sufficiently here I believe?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah, after that it will be just back to bashing the Irish electorate for being dumb when it comes to Lisbon II.

Few people have ever said dumb, we generally say ignorant. That is totally different. Most Irish people don't have an interest in the EU 99% of the time and therefore don't know all that much about it, hence they tend to be ignorant.

I hate Libertas for one reason and one reason alone. They are preying on Irish peoples ignorance of the EU, and more lately on our frustration with our existing parties. They are cynically trying to get our support using lies and half-truths and clever marketing without ever actually creating any firm policies. Basically they are a cynical and manipulative bunch using our own apathy and ignorance to gain power for themselves in a far more blatant way and a far greater level than any other party I've seen in the modern Western world.

Hitman Actual

@RandomName2: I've challenged you in two posts in this thread, and you have ignored me, as I see you do with all posts that require facts to back up your claims. Can you offer any sound arguments that Libertas don't continuously deal in "falsehoods"?It appears from your posts that you believe they don't.

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

I distinctly remember Ganley on Q&A on the topic of abortion. After the rest of the panel, including Mary Lou of Sinn Fein (i.e. a core No vote proponent) had agreed that Lisbon did not threaten Ireland's provision on abortion due to the special provision in EU treaties stating that Ireland's stance on abortion cannot be affected by EU treaties, Ganley said the matter was unclear.

Now, I'm sorry, of all the issues, this is simply false. It's written down in black and white in ink on EU treaties that Ireland's stance on Abortion is its own to decide, there is nothing unclear about it.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

@RandomName2: I've challenged you in two posts in this thread, and you have ignored me, as I see you do with all posts that require facts to back up your claims. Can you offer any sound arguments that Libertas don't continuously deal in "falsehoods"?It appears from your posts that you believe they don't.

Well, if by ignoring you, you mean that the necessity for concrete proof proves that I am a paid employee of Libertas, then you don't actually merit any reply.

But honestly I don't know whether or not Libertas are telling the truth (in an objective sense concerning their criticisms of the EU and Lisbon). I do know that there has been a considerable amount of misinformation generated by the 'yes' side. However, the nature of whether either side is telling the truth when it comes to specifics concerning the legislative strength of Brussels is a major sticking point. As it currently stands maybe... 24% of Irish law originates from Brussels, and how directly answerable Brussels is to the Irish public is questionable. Of course, Brussels is limited in what it can legislate on, thank God.

In practise whether or not Libertas is telling the truth is probably irrelevant, and in a number of ways. First, they will not be a massive party, and be fundamentally limited in strength. Moreover, whether or not the EU is a federal body has already been decided by Maastricht. So essentially, for better or worse, we have to live with it. At least Lisbon does tidy up the administration and legal nicities of it, although the prospect of an EU which is more effecient at generating laws is not one which I can warm to. Not that it will change the position of abortion in Ireland, not that I give a damn whether it does or not.

Fundamentally the issue seems to resolve around whether it is worth surrending a small amount of national sovereignty, along with the other 26 members, for the potential benefits it will bring. Why doesn't the 'yes' side put it this way instead of dancing around the issue, as they predominently do, attempting to drown out debate by watering down the discussion to a level where one has to say you are either 'pro' or 'anti' Europe? This is far worse than anything Libertas has done up until now, and you should agree with this no matter what your political allegiance, as this lack of debate has been the catalyst for Libertas to emerge in the first place.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, if by ignoring you, you mean that the necessity for concrete proof proves that I am a paid employee of Libertas, then you don't actually merit any reply.

No, it doesn't really bother me if you're a shill or not. That's not my point at all. You replied to sink with the following, when he posted about the 'integrity' of Libertas:

wrote:

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

I referred you to a thread here and to Libertas' 8 Reasons to Vote No from their Lisbon campaign, where it's really easy to see that they do deal in outrageous falsehoods, but you chose to ignore the threads.

RandomName2 wrote:

But honestly I don't know whether or not Libertas are telling the truth (in an objective sense concerning their criticisms of the EU and Lisbon).

Ah come on now. :rolleyes: Again I refer you to the two links above. And they're just two examples. nesf has posted another a couple of posts back. I also recall Ganley being asked the following question on Eamonn Keanes lunchtime show on Newstalk on the Monday before the Lisbon referendum: "Will enhanced cooperation force Ireland to change it's corporation tax rate?", to which he answered with an emphatic "Yes". This is a bare-faced, outright lie, and can be easily shown to be.

RandomName2 wrote:

I do know that there has been a considerable amount of misinformation generated by the 'yes' side.

Political spin is one thing, but the Yes campaigners, particularly the political parties, have never engaged in the despicable outright lying that Libertas engage in. Even Sinn Fein, for all their opposition to EU treaties, don't step over the line in this regard. We've given you some examples of Libertas lies; why don't you give us some examples of outright lying by the Yes side? If there was a "considerable amount of misinformation", it shouldn't be too hard for you.

RandomName2 wrote:

However, the nature of whether either side is telling the truth when it comes to specifics concerning the legislative strength of Brussels is a major sticking point. As it currently stands maybe... 24% of Irish law originates from Brussels, and how directly answerable Brussels is to the Irish public is questionable. Of course, Brussels is limited in what it can legislate on, thank God.

Why is it a "major sticking point"? The EU is a supranational organisation of 27 countries; it's absolutely necessary that some sovereignty will be pooled. The benefits of being in this organisation, particularly for a small country like us, far outweigh the price of losing some of that sovereignty.

RandomName2 wrote:

In practise whether or not Libertas is telling the truth is probably irrelevant, and in a number of ways. First, they will not be a massive party, and be fundamentally limited in strength. Moreover, whether or not the EU is a federal body has already been decided by Maastricht. So essentially, for better or worse, we have to live with it. At least Lisbon does tidy up the administration and legal nicities of it, although the prospect of an EU which is more effecient at generating laws is not one which I can warm to. Not that it will change the position of abortion in Ireland, not that I give a damn whether it does or not.

Irrelevant?! When polls show that as much as 60% of the No vote in the first referendum were due to lack of understanding and misinformation, how can you call that irrelevant?

RandomName2 wrote:

Fundamentally the issue seems to resolve around whether it is worth surrending a small amount of national sovereignty, along with the other 26 members, for the potential benefits it will bring. Why doesn't the 'yes' side put it this way instead of dancing around the issue, as they predominently do, attempting to drown out debate by watering down the discussion to a level where one has to say you are either 'pro' or 'anti' Europe? This is far worse than anything Libertas has done up until now, and you should agree with this no matter what your political allegiance, as this lack of debate has been the catalyst for Libertas to emerge in the first place.

I think you'll find on this forum that the pro-EU regular posters do appreciate that there are trade-offs in our sovereignty and the benefits of being in the EU. But the level of debate continuously gets dragged down by the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments (e.g. based on factual info in the Treaties, etc), but only seem to be armed with nationalistic, 'little Irelander' arguments. And Libertas certainly don't enhance the debate, unless you think that giving brazen outright liars a voice is a good thing.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I referred you to a thread here and to Libertas' 8 Reasons to Vote No from their Lisbon campaign, where it's really easy to see that they do deal in outrageous falsehoods, but you chose to ignore the threads.

Okay, the 'yes' side seem to take the easier course of looking at the latter arguments of those '8 reasons'. Yet, even in terms of Libertas' argument that it 'enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law' - it is hard to call that a lie. The Lisbon Treaty does not create that distinction, merely affirms it. They shouldn't really have used that as a point, mind you they do say 'enshrine' not 'create' (yes, a manipulation of the facts, perhaps)

1. Creates an unelected EU President and Foreign Minister

Both true and false. There is already a President. He is currently unelected (rotating). Lisbon creates a new Presidency. This president is not directly elected but elected by representatives themselves elected across Europe.

2. Halves Irish voting weight whilst doubling that of Germany's

Exclusive to the European Parliament, this is true (although there is a higher majority needed to pass legislation). Besides which, the EU parliament is arguably the weakest branch of EU legislative power - that would probably be the Commission.

3. Abolishes Irish Commissioner for 5 years at a time.
5 years is an outright lie, as far as I know (although this was written up prior to Lisbon I, so might have been different then). Overall this seems pretty much correct though (they do acknowledge the rotating nature of Commissioners throughout EU)

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I think you'll find on this forum that the pro-EU regular posters do appreciate that there are trade-offs in our sovereignty and the benefits of being in the EU. But the level of debate continuously gets dragged down by the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments (e.g. based on factual info in the Treaties, etc), but only seem to be armed with nationalistic, 'little Irelander' arguments. And Libertas certainly don't enhance the debate, unless you think that giving brazen outright liars a voice is a good thing.

True, the dept of arguments provided by the 'yes' side in this forum are far-superior to that of our politicians. That is, even if you do still go in for branding anti-Lisbon folk with such nice generalisations as 'the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments (e.g. based on factual info in the Treaties, etc), but only seem to be armed with nationalistic, 'little Irelander' arguments.'

P.S. You should get away from your dislike of the idea that the EU undermines Irish law, because it certainly does. Try arguing that it is a good thing (i.e. necessary for a supranational state, and that a supranational state is preferable to the alternative). The 'democracy deficit' gripe still stands in the election of the President and Commissioners (I still havn't heard a credible argument why there should not be direct election).

BlitzKrieg

That is, even if you do still go in for branding anti-Lisbon folk with such nice generalisations as 'the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments

I think if you spent a few minutes looking through the threads that have appeared here since the first lisbon treaty you would find that pretty much every *anti lisbon folk* argument has been shot down because they lacked *sound logical arguments* In fact I am actually saddened that the best anti lisbon debaters have disapeared or kept generally quiet on the subject since the the first referendum

those would be Turgon and democrates (And this is the most lovey dovey positive thread you will ever see on the politics section of boards: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311337)

Every thread since then has almost been a repeat of the one before it.

1. Creates an unelected EU President and Foreign Minister

Both true and false. There is already a President. He is currently unelected (rotating). Lisbon creates a new Presidency. This president is not directly elected but elected by representatives themselves elected across Europe.

Yes but they go on to say that his powers/role have not been decided, when they clearly have. He gets no vote on any issue in the council or in the commission. The role was designed as a bridge because technically THe European Council is traditional not part of the EU and is a seperate organisation, with the introduction of the president it allows the council to have a consistent channel of communication with the other institutions, a spokesperson if you like.

3. Abolishes Irish Commissioner for 5 years at a time.
5 years is an outright lie, as far as I know (although this was written up prior to Lisbon I, so might have been different then). Overall this seems pretty much correct though (they do acknowledge the rotating nature of Commissioners throughout EU)

Yes and it was true for Nice aswell, except with Lisbon there was an actually system in place for rotation while with nice the commissioner is simply not there. Besides the whole our commissoner aspect is untrue to begin with. If a TD is elected from tipperary north and is made minister of education does that make him tipperary's minister of education? And before you point out the old commissioner would watch out for irish interests...Commissioners have pretty much no power as to how a law is implemented. They propose a law and its the other two institutions that decide how its implemented, so there is almost no way for a commissioner to do territorial back scratching when it will find it taken away instantly by the European council and Parliment (and under Lisbon the national governments can oppose directly at the same time.)

Salome

Listening to Caroline Simons screeching like a harpie on the Last Word during the week showed Libertas' true colours - right wing extremists with a good PR machine. Let's hope the voting public don't fall for their propaganda.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

P.S. You should get away from your dislike of the idea that the EU undermines Irish law, because it certainly does. Try arguing that it is a good thing (i.e. necessary for a supranational state, and that a supranational state is preferable to the alternative). The 'democracy deficit' gripe still stands in the election of the President and Commissioners (I still havn't heard a credible argument why there should not be direct election).

Well, part the first is obvious - you cannot make common legislation for the entire EU which can be locally overridden. If national legislation is superior to the laws commonly agreed for the common EU market, then there isn't really any common legislation.

Part the second is also fairly obvious, I would think. Any elected President would be elected by one or other of the largest voting blocks, every time. He or she would then be answerable primarily to that voting block.

The same goes for the Commissioners, except perhaps with more practical effect, since the powers of the President are largely presentational. However, let's assume that of course we are electing the 'Irish' Commissioner within Ireland. First, we should note that there is currently nothing preventing us doing so, because the treaties do not specify anything other than that countries should nominate the Commissioners. It would be a little tricky, because we would actually have to elect a list, since the European Parliament has powers of refusal, but let's say we can smooth out our outrage when the Parliament rejects an elected Commissioner.

So, are there any intrinsic problems with an elected Commissioner? Again, I'd say there are, and they're obvious. Elections are a competition, but a competition judged on no objective criteria, where every legal technique is allowable. Elections, therefore, are rarely models of dignity, but are often instead a cross between an auction and a catfight. At the end of it, we will have elected a Commissioner who will represent only a section of Irish society - a plurality rather than a majority assuming there are more than two candidates. That person will, in turn, be beholden to the section of the electorate that put him or her in the Commissioner seat.

Two things are then possible - first, our elected Commissioner wants to be re-elected. In that case, the Irish Commissioner will do as much as possible to make himself popular with the Irish electorate - or at least that section of him he thinks will elect him next time. Second, our elected Commissioner does not want to be re-elected, in which case we have no way of holding him to account anyway, despite his initial election.

So, the only thing that makes it worth electing the Commissioner is when the person elected wishes re-election. Unfortunately, as pointed out, that means he's pushing the Irish agenda in Brussels, because he's elected in a competitive election. Now, pushing national agendas is not the Commission's job, but the Council's - the Commission's job is to be European. So we've already broken part of the EU - and to our own detriment, because anything other than regulatory stuff that goes through the Commission also has to go through the Council. Any attempt by Ireland to push the Irish agenda from the Commission will falter at the Council step, where it will be resisted by the other countries. And that relatively benign scenario rests on the idea that we are the only country electing Commissioners - if we assume everyone does it, then the German Commissioner will be pushing the German agenda, and so on, turning the Commission into an competition-based rather than consensus-based body.

Since what one can push will depend on which portfolio one has, we can guarantee that the good portfolios would go to the big countries - there certainly wouldn't be an Irishman in charge of a plum portfolio like Internal Markets. And there's a little more than that.

Something worth realising is that the system of national Commissioners is the result of the quite natural suspicion between European countries. Everyone insisted on keeping 'their man' on the Commission in case another country tried to push their national agenda through the Commission. That the Commission has been, instead, a genuinely European body over its existence is the reason that it was possible first for the bigger countries to give up their second Commissioner, and now for all countries to consider a Commission on which they don't have a permanent presence.

Electing Commissioners would actually reverse that, because each Commissioner would be in the pocket of the electorate that put him there - and if he were not, what would be the point of electing him?

So what seems from a naive perspective to be obviously "better because more democratic" would in fact have the effect of massively reducing Irish influence in the EU, of setting back the goodwill between the member states that is the whole point of the EU, and of turning the only genuinely European bit of the EU into another arena of national competition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, part the first is obvious - you cannot make common legislation for the entire EU which can be locally overridden. If national legislation is superior to the laws commonly agreed for the common EU market, then there isn't really any common legislation...

I agree with this (as well as the rest of the post). I simply want to emphasise, for those who might miss the point, that the general purpose of EU legislation or regulation is to enable markets to be as free and fair as possible. That involves having common standards for goods and services: how can you have fair competition between say, Danish and Irish pork producers if one group is burdened with the costs of health regulations that are created for the good of consumers, and the other group run a wild west operation?

And then there are wider issue to address: for example, about beef, mostly arising from the fact that the EU operates in a wider world, with WTO agreements. The EU internal market does not want beef raised with hormone injections, but that practice is considered acceptable in the US, and the US administration holds that open world markets should oblige us to accept US beef. And then we have Brazilian beef, where European farmers, particularly Irish farmers, contend that animal health standards do not satisfy European requirements. I think the IFA might have a valid point, but it must also be recognised that in making their claims, they are hardly disinterested, and their claims should be scrutinised rather than blindly accepted. Such battles are inevitable, and we try to get on the best way we can.

Yes, of course people sometimes try to slant EU rules to give their own people an edge in the market, as in the effort to ban cheeses made from unpastuerised milk. Human nature is such that we will always have such skirmishes, and they can be bothersome. But we battle on, achieving more good than bad outcomes.

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree with this (as well as the rest of the post). I simply want to emphasise, for those who might miss the point, that the general purpose of EU legislation or regulation is to enable markets to be as free and fair as possible. That involves having common standards for goods and services: how can you have fair competition between say, Danish and Irish pork producers if one group is burdened with the costs of health regulations that are created for the good of consumers, and the other group run a wild west operation?

And then there are wider issue to address: for example, about beef, mostly arising from the fact that the EU operates in a wider world, with WTO agreements. The EU internal market does not want beef raised with hormone injections, but that practice is considered acceptable in the US, and the US administration holds that open world markets should oblige us to accept US beef. And then we have Brazilian beef, where European farmers, particularly Irish farmers, contend that animal health standards do not satisfy European requirements. I think the IFA might have a valid point, but it must also be recognised that in making their claims, they are hardly disinterested, and their claims should be scrutinised rather than blindly accepted. Such battles are inevitable, and we try to get on the best way we can.

Yes, of course people sometimes try to slant EU rules to give their own people an edge in the market, as in the effort to ban cheeses made from unpastuerised milk. Human nature is such that we will always have such skirmishes, and they can be bothersome. But we battle on, achieving more good than bad outcomes.

Look, the time when Europe legislation was based singularly upon trade has long since passed. You are talking about the EC and free trade. What you are talking about is only part of one of the three pillars established by Maastricht.

ionix5891

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, the time when Europe legislation was based singularly upon trade has long since passed. You are talking about the EC and free trade. What you are talking about is only part of one of the three pillars established by Maastricht.

what are the other 2?

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, the time when Europe legislation was based singularly upon trade has long since passed. You are talking about the EC and free trade. What you are talking about is only part of one of the three pillars established by Maastricht.

The great bulk of European law, regulation, and administrative procedure is concerned with trying to achieve free and fair internal markets for goods, services, capital, and labour.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, part the first is obvious - you cannot make common legislation for the entire EU which can be locally overridden. If national legislation is superior to the laws commonly agreed for the common EU market, then there isn't really any common legislation.

Part the second is also fairly obvious, I would think. Any elected President would be elected by one or other of the largest voting blocks, every time. He or she would then be answerable primarily to that voting block.

The same goes for the Commissioners, except perhaps with more practical effect, since the powers of the President are largely presentational. However, let's assume that of course we are electing the 'Irish' Commissioner within Ireland. First, we should note that there is currently nothing preventing us doing so, because the treaties do not specify anything other than that countries should nominate the Commissioners. It would be a little tricky, because we would actually have to elect a list, since the European Parliament has powers of refusal, but let's say we can smooth out our outrage when the Parliament rejects an elected Commissioner.

So, are there any intrinsic problems with an elected Commissioner? Again, I'd say there are, and they're obvious. Elections are a competition, but a competition judged on no objective criteria, where every legal technique is allowable. Elections, therefore, are rarely models of dignity, but are often instead a cross between an auction and a catfight. At the end of it, we will have elected a Commissioner who will represent only a section of Irish society - a plurality rather than a majority assuming there are more than two candidates. That person will, in turn, be beholden to the section of the electorate that put him or her in the Commissioner seat.

Two things are then possible - first, our elected Commissioner wants to be re-elected. In that case, the Irish Commissioner will do as much as possible to make himself popular with the Irish electorate - or at least that section of him he thinks will elect him next time. Second, our elected Commissioner does not want to be re-elected, in which case we have no way of holding him to account anyway, despite his initial election.

So, the only thing that makes it worth electing the Commissioner is when the person elected wishes re-election. Unfortunately, as pointed out, that means he's pushing the Irish agenda in Brussels, because he's elected in a competitive election. Now, pushing national agendas is not the Commission's job, but the Council's - the Commission's job is to be European. So we've already broken part of the EU - and to our own detriment, because anything other than regulatory stuff that goes through the Commission also has to go through the Council. Any attempt by Ireland to push the Irish agenda from the Commission will falter at the Council step, where it will be resisted by the other countries. And that relatively benign scenario rests on the idea that we are the only country electing Commissioners - if we assume everyone does it, then the German Commissioner will be pushing the German agenda, and so on, turning the Commission into an competition-based rather than consensus-based body.

Since what one can push will depend on which portfolio one has, we can guarantee that the good portfolios would go to the big countries - there certainly wouldn't be an Irishman in charge of a plum portfolio like Internal Markets. And there's a little more than that.

Something worth realising is that the system of national Commissioners is the result of the quite natural suspicion between European countries. Everyone insisted on keeping 'their man' on the Commission in case another country tried to push their national agenda through the Commission. That the Commission has been, instead, a genuinely European body over its existence is the reason that it was possible first for the bigger countries to give up their second Commissioner, and now for all countries to consider a Commission on which they don't have a permanent presence.

Electing Commissioners would actually reverse that, because each Commissioner would be in the pocket of the electorate that put him there - and if he were not, what would be the point of electing him?

So what seems from a naive perspective to be obviously "better because more democratic" would in fact have the effect of massively reducing Irish influence in the EU, of setting back the goodwill between the member states that is the whole point of the EU, and of turning the only genuinely European bit of the EU into another arena of national competition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bravo, an unusually choherent argument.

However, there is a fundamental contradiction in all of what you are saying: the dichotomy between national citizenship and European citizenship.

You complain that an elected President would only represent part of the electorate. This is a complaint about democracy in general - unless you agree that there are divergent national interests in the EU - which in turn would leave in question the legitimacy of a body that overrides national law. The fact that this body is a conglomerate is not the point if the national government whoose law is being overriden is being overpowered by the supranational body. The purpose of such legislation is the rub in relation to the EU as it stands. There is no democratic legitimacy to create laws on issues which are internal to the member states (e.g. criminal law). The fact that the EU was based initially upon economics that affected every member state was the reason why the body was granted legislative power in the first place.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, are there any intrinsic problems with an elected Commissioner? Again, I'd say there are, and they're obvious. Elections are a competition, but a competition judged on no objective criteria, where every legal technique is allowable. Elections, therefore, are rarely models of dignity, but are often instead a cross between an auction and a catfight. At the end of it, we will have elected a Commissioner who will represent only a section of Irish society - a plurality rather than a majority assuming there are more than two candidates. That person will, in turn, be beholden to the section of the electorate that put him or her in the Commissioner seat.

Two things are then possible - first, our elected Commissioner wants to be re-elected. In that case, the Irish Commissioner will do as much as possible to make himself popular with the Irish electorate - or at least that section of him he thinks will elect him next time. Second, our elected Commissioner does not want to be re-elected, in which case we have no way of holding him to account anyway, despite his initial election.

Plato put it better:
'"In a democracy there is liberty and freedom of speech, and every individual is free to do as he likes, and there’s the greatest variety of individual character. I dare say most people would judge democracy the best form of society, like women and children who judge by appearance. There’s no compulsion to exercise authority or submit to authority. Politicians can come from any background provided they call themselves the peoples’ friends. This society treats men as equal, whether they are or not. Unnecessary pleasures abound in this society. Rulers call shame silliness and self-control cowardice, and banish economy and moderation.
Aeschylus: All very true.
Glaucon: An excessive desire for liberty at the expense of everything leads to the demand for tyranny.
Socrates: Democracy abuses the authorities as contemptible. There is no respect, and no difference between citizen and foreigner. A democratic society falls into three groups; energetic leaders, the Rich, and the masses, who, when assembled, are supreme, but won’t assemble often unless given a share of money. The leaders rob the rich, keep most of the proceeds, and distribute the rest to the masses. Thus the tyrant emerges from the robbed rich and becomes a popular leader by making large promises"'.

So this is back to the same old distinction between 'representative' democracy and (ahem) direct democracy. You, like Plato, argue that only the 'gold' should be allowed rule within the EU, and this is ensured by the process whereby the actual control of the EU is generated by those who have been elected. The fact that there is a vote somewhere along the chain does not make it democratic - it is the reason why the President of America is not 'elected' by Congress (because this would be termed as dictatorship). The fact that both the EU president and Commission are NOT DIRECTLY ANSWERABLE to the citizens of Europe belies the notion of an EU citizenship. The only democratic legislative body in the EU is the Parliament - and it is also the weakest.

So we have a dual process of legislation - the Irish government and the EU (the former being weaker than the latter, but legislates on far more areas than the latter). Howver, when you talk about 'Irish influence' in the EU, you actually mean the 'Irish government influence'. What is the Irish government agenda? In terms of the EU I never have to check, at least directly - generally a glance at whatever position that Berlesconi or Sarkozy hold in relation to the EU would be mirrored by Biffo (even if it does weaken Ireland or the Irish electorate ... e.g. Lisbon). I have already argued that national governments may not acurately reflect the people that they represent when it comes to the EU, but we will agree to disagree on that one.

It would be better if the hypocracy was gotten rid of: national parliaments were disbanded and, as EU citizens we actually had a direct voice in the governance of the Union, or alternately if we at least got Home Rule (where's Parnell when you need him?). This might seem a bit extreme, but until now the EU has been too badly organised to churn out legislation. However, with the constitutional amendments of Lisbon (to Brussels, not Ireland) this will not be the case. Moreover, the precendent set by legislation on 'terrorism' and 'global warming' has set a further precedent in eroding national legislative authority (for instance, with the former, the stage has been set to redefine criminal law within Brussels).