Richard Greene (Cóir) Article in the Irish Times

storinius

I was just wondering what people thought of the Richard Greene article in the times today. I will pin my colours to the mast early on and say that I am a dedicated YES voter. However, it seemed to me that the article, printed by a reputable paper, contained a number of basic factual errors. Ones that have been debunked on this site on a number of occassions. (I am referring in particular to the 0.8% voting weight, as against 17% for Germany, the 'citizens of an EU superstate', and that is without even mentioning the legal guarantees debate).

I was just wondering what people's take on this is. Am I being ridiculous to suggest that the Times is being irresponsible in providing a platform for what appear to be outrageous manipulations of the truth?

Daftendirekt

Have you got a link to the article?

Économiste Monétaire

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0714/1224250637985.html

Daftendirekt

While the article is only an opinion piece, it's an incredibly uninformed one.

However, I don't know if the Times usually allows any old crackpot to publish articles like this in it, so I don't know if this is normal for them or not. While admittedly I didn't finish reading the article, the headline and first three paragraphs were enough to give me a sense of what was to come.

Since the article doesn't actually add anything to the Lisbon debate, I'd have to agree with you OP, there's no need for them to publish this kind of nonsense.

P. Breathnach

Daftendirekt wrote: »

... However, I don't know if the Times usually allows any old crackpot to publish articles like this in it, so I don't know if this is normal for them or not...

They did have Kevin Myers on their staff, and they have provided a platform for the likes of Charles Krauthammer.

Some would consider Fintan O'Toole an old crackpot, and others might consider John Watters and old crackpot.

There are young crackpots, too.

carveone

Daftendirekt wrote: »

While the article is only an opinion piece, it's an incredibly uninformed one.

It's Coir/Youth Defence, what do you expect. The most chilling part of the previous Lisbon treaty for me, whatever way you voted, was seeing those people again. Hell, even the most Socialist or Sinn Fein or Workers Party campaigners refused to even seen near them... I think it was Jim Higgins that was asked to have his photo taken with Coir representatives and he went nuts - talk about a career ending move that would be.

I'm sure many here remember the 80s, and many will remember the crap that went on in 1993 and 1994 with the X case and contraception and referendums on whether people should be allowed leave the country etc. It was beyond awful...

And now we have the right to lifers on the march, blasphemy legislation (like the government have nothing better to do) and now Coir writing into the Irish Times. I'm not being dragged back to the 1980s, or for that matter the 1950s. I'll learn German or brush up on my French or get a London accent and bale out well before that happens.

Regardless of your opinions on Lisbon, indeed regardless of your opinions on divorce or abortion or anything like that, Coir are not the people you want to see back in business.

Scofflaw

carveone wrote: »

It's Coir/Youth Defence, what do you expect. The most chilling part of the previous Lisbon treaty for me, whatever way you voted, was seeing those people again. Hell, even the most Socialist or Sinn Fein or Workers Party campaigners refused to even seen near them... I think it was Jim Higgins that was asked to have his photo taken with Coir representatives and he went nuts - talk about a career ending move that would be.

I'm sure many here remember the 80s, and many will remember the crap that went on in 1993 and 1994 with the X case and contraception and referendums on whether people should be allowed leave the country etc. It was beyond awful...

And now we have the right to lifers on the march, blasphemy legislation (like the government have nothing better to do) and now Coir writing into the Irish Times. I'm not being dragged back to the 1980s, or for that matter the 1950s. I'll learn German or brush up on my French or get a London accent and bale out well before that happens.

Regardless of your opinions on Lisbon, indeed regardless of your opinions on divorce or abortion or anything like that, Coir are not the people you want to see back in business.

I don't think they were ever out of business. Certainly they never lacked for funding - look at the Youth Defence poster campaign in Cork against UCC stem cell research. Their endorsement of Ganley's campaign in the euros, and their canvassing for Caroline Simmons, suggested to me that Libertas were at least partly COIR in suits. This time round there's no Libertas (probably), so we're seeing COIR front and centre - but they were there in the last campaign alright.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

As I wrote in my blog about negativity by association, we are seeing the same tactics again.

COIR are a lunatic fringe, unimportant, unelected and a throwback who want a theocracy, not a republic.

However, as with Nice II they are being projected by pro Lisbon bodies - eg the Times - as a major player in the No campaign.

More attention was focused on that idiot Justin Barrett, Dana and others in a tiny minority schism by the Times and RTE during the Nice II campaign than on issues raised by the Greens and SF.

In my opinion, if it were possiblem, the only good thing that might possibly come from a Yes Vote is that in the European Court of Human Rights women are given the right to choose with their bodies, their conscience and their God - not some nut reciting the rosary twice a day.

However, as an Irish citizen, unlike our politicians, I respect the colective decision in a referendum, and I will wait until a new government decides to have a new referendum on the issue.
I do not expect a referendum once a year until the 'correct' answer comes back.

Mr Green and his ilk do not represent the majority of those who object to the Lisbon treaty in its current format.

Please do not confuse people like me with groups like COIR in relation to the Lisbon vote

Daftendirekt

Zuiderzee wrote: »

In my opinion, if it were possiblem, the only good thing that might possibly come from a Yes Vote is that in the European Court of Human Rights women are given the right to choose with their bodies, their conscience and their God - not some nut reciting the rosary twice a day.

What do you mean?

Mr Green and his ilk do not represent the majority of those who object to the Lisbon treaty in its current format.

Please do not confuse people like me with groups like COIR in relation to the Lisbon vote

I wouldn't worry, I think most people realise this.

storinius

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Mr Green and his ilk do not represent the majority of those who object to the Lisbon treaty in its current format.

Please do not confuse people like me with groups like COIR in relation to the Lisbon vote

It is interesting that you say that Mr. Green et al. do not represent the majority of NO voters. I fear that their voices are the loudest among the NO side, and consequently they seem to define it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

storinius wrote: »

It is interesting that you say that Mr. Green et al. do not represent the majority of NO voters. I fear that their voices are the loudest among the NO side, and consequently they seem to define it.

Certainly their 'arguments' are the most prevalent I've seen:
http://www.lisbonvote.com/

sink

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Mr Green and his ilk do not represent the majority of those who object to the Lisbon treaty in its current format.

Please do not confuse people like me with groups like COIR in relation to the Lisbon vote

The only 'organisations' campaigning for a no vote are fringe groups imo. Sinn Fein, Coir, SWP and formerly Libertas. Judging by the Euro and Local elections these groups don't represent the majority of Lisbon objector's . So if these, don't who does? Who would you say is in the public eye and articulates your positions accurately? Because they were pretty much the only ones hanging posters, canvassing door to door and appearing on TV, radio and in newspapers with any consistency.

storinius

sink wrote: »

Judging by the Euro and Local elections these groups don't represent the majority of Lisbon objector's . So if these, don't who does? Who would you say is in the public eye and articulates your positions accurately? Because they were pretty much the only ones hanging posters, canvassing door to door and appearing on TV, radio and in newspapers with any consistency.

This might be a little off topic, but a rant about the Irish Times editorial policy seems appropriate here. And this goes for all non state broadcasters too. I can understand RTE giving air time to groups such as Cóir, as they are legally obligated to seek people out and present a 50-50 view under McKenna. The Irish Times however are under no such obligation, nor are Today FM, Newstalk, etc.

Now I have no objection per se with groups such as Cóir being involved in the debate, we live after all in a democracy, and they are entitled to air their views. However, broadcasters and editors are surely under some responsibility to ensure that they are not allowed to say ANYTHING they want? Why is it that NO people are never pulled up on outrageous statements they make, and to link it into the discussion here, why is Richard Greene allowed to claim, in print, that the Lisbon Treaty will half our voting weight and double Germany's? This has been debunked on boards so many times at this stage that it is getting really boring!

Hitman Actual

If the IT are as biased towards a pro-Lisbon stance as they are reputed to be, then giving a platform to whack-jobs like Coir isn't a bad idea- it pushes marginal voters towards the Yes side, imo.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hitman Actual wrote: »

If the IT are as biased towards a pro-Lisbon stance as they are reputed to be, then giving a platform to whack-jobs like Coir isn't a bad idea- it pushes marginal voters towards the Yes side, imo.

Well they only come across as whack jobs if you already know what they are saying is untrue.

BlitzKrieg

In my opinion, if it were possiblem, the only good thing that might possibly come from a Yes Vote is that in the European Court of Human Rights women are given the right to choose with their bodies, their conscience and their God

Sadly its not posible. Ireland's pro life law is hardwired into the european treaties via protocol 35 (which I now understand has been there quite a while) no argument in any court can win when an element of a treaty specifies it will not change an element of a states constitution.


The reality is the only way it is going to change is with a referendum, and the day that comes it will be the most polarized referendum in Ireland's history I'd say.

personnally i'll be spoiling my vote if it comes to that.

Zuiderzee

sink wrote: »

The only 'organisations' campaigning for a no vote are fringe groups imo. Sinn Fein, Coir, SWP and formerly Libertas. Judging by the Euro and Local elections these groups don't represent the majority of Lisbon objector's . So if these, don't who does? Who would you say is in the public eye and articulates your positions accurately? Because they were pretty much the only ones hanging posters, canvassing door to door and appearing on TV, radio and in newspapers with any consistency.

You left out the People Before Profit group, and the peoples alliance.

If - using the logic of other posters with regards Pro Lisbon parties being the majority - then why did the referendum fail in the first place, as it did in France and Holland also.

As I said - this tarring all with the one brush is turning into a nasty trait in Ireland.

Daften, What I meant was if the Lisbon treaty could be used to give women the right to choose - I think that would be a good thing, but abortion is not the reason I object to Lisbon, in fact I dont think the treaty has anything to do with the issue.

bibbly

I am amazed at this article, it seems the irish times has dropped its standards.. this is clear sensationalism and just because it's a opinion piece is no excuse.

I am voting YES to lisbon, as i believe it is in the best interests of our country. I think you should base you base your decision on the facts and disregard this kind of nonsense.

View

Zuiderzee wrote: »

If - using the logic of other posters with regards Pro Lisbon parties being the majority - then why did the referendum fail in the first place, as it did in France and Holland also.

Simple - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

Generate enough of it and people start to vote No on the basis that "the devil you know (i.e. Nice), is better than the devil you don't (i.e. Lisbon)". The aim of the No campaign is to generate confusion - remember, the leading No campaigners don't have to offer a positive alternative. They will never have to sit down and negotiate an alternative package at EU level, so they can literally not give a d*&n about the consequences of their claims.

The Corinthian

Hitman Actual wrote: »

If the IT are as biased towards a pro-Lisbon stance as they are reputed to be, then giving a platform to whack-jobs like Coir isn't a bad idea- it pushes marginal voters towards the Yes side, imo.

Quite possibly; the IT has long had the habit of giving "both sides of the argument" on the letters page and picking well reasoned opinions on the side they supported and then publishing the letters of the crackpots alongside them.

I've never spoken to or met Richard Greene, but I have to some of his supporters and when you hear arguments citing the "Black Beast of the Book of Revelations" you do tend to roll your eyes to Heaven (No pun intended). However, Ireland is a democracy, so even the crackpots deserve a say.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Quite possibly; the IT has long had the habit of giving "both sides of the argument" on the letters page and picking well reasoned opinions on the side they supported and then publishing the letters of the crackpots alongside them.

I've never spoken to or met Richard Greene, but I have to some of his supporters and when you hear arguments citing the "Black Beast of the Book of Revelations" you do tend to roll your eyes to Heaven (No pun intended). However, Ireland is a democracy, so even the crackpots deserve a say.

To give the Times their due, they were relatively even-handed in coverage in last year's referendum, and didn't, as far as I recall, use that particular sleight of hand, instead giving plenty of space to people like Mary-Lou and various credible political/economic commentators. This time round, though, it seems that people like COIR are going to be the mainstay of the No campaigns, which means that they'll be getting the air time and page space. That may change between here and October, but it seems that way to me so far.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

View wrote: »

Simple - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

Generate enough of it and people start to vote No on the basis that "the devil you know (i.e. Nice), is better than the devil you don't (i.e. Lisbon)". The aim of the No campaign is to generate confusion - remember, the leading No campaigners don't have to offer a positive alternative. They will never have to sit down and negotiate an alternative package at EU level, so they can literally not give a d*&n about the consequences of their claims.

I feel that the Government also do a pretty good job generating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).
They imply that by voting no we will lose our jobs and our houses, we will get kicked out of europe.
This is not true

We should do as we're told and do what the government tells us.
We should trust a gang of nepotistic discredited politicians who have patently failed.
Or, as some here sugested, if you dont understand then dont vote.

Sorry, but if things are not clear then we should not accept them on faith from people like Cowen and Lenihan -the latter being a person who blames our current woes on policies he promoted.
The former has come back with stage managed garantees - which I am informed here by Yes voters - mean nothing anyway.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I feel that the Government also do a pretty good job generating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).
They imply that by voting no we will lose our jobs and our houses, we will get kicked out of europe.
This is not true

We should do as we're told and do what the government tells us.
We should trust a gang of nepotistic discredited politicians who have patently failed.
Or, as some here sugested, if you dont understand then dont vote.

Sorry, but if things are not clear then we should not accept them on faith from people like Cowen and Lenihan -the latter being a person who blames our current woes on policies he promoted.
The former has come back with stage managed garantees - which I am informed here by Yes voters - mean nothing anyway.

Actually, the guarantees mean quite a lot - they mean that most of the fears created by the No campaigns last time round are untrue, and are legally guaranteed to be untrue. They, along with the German judgement, constitute what you might call a clean bill of health for Lisbon. The return of the Commissioner is a material change, and one that personally I consider welcome. Nor were those things as achieved as easily as you dismiss them - they were debated in every government and parliament in Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Yet twice in the past few days I have seen - uncorrected - posts stating the Garuantees are quite unimportant as they do not seem to relate to the treaty.

This is where the confusion arises, I am being told different things by the yes campaign posters here

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Yet twice in the past few days I have seen - uncorrected - posts stating the Garuantees are quite unimportant as they do not seem to relate to the treaty.

This is where the confusion arises, I am being told different things by the yes campaign posters here

Don't be confused! The guarantees are:

1. legally watertight - they're international agreements, with the same standing as the Edinburgh Agreements given to Denmark for the Maastricht Treaty.

2. relevant to the decision on Lisbon, because they stipulate and guarantee that things people were concerned about in Lisbon aren't in Lisbon

3. however, since they're guaranteeing that things that aren't in the Treaty aren't in the Treaty, they're also legally unnecessary.

If I offered you a contract, and your adviser said not to sign because I'd be allowed to take over your bank account, of what value is a legal guarantee written by your bank that I cannot do so, and that the contract does not contain any such clause? Assuming I never intended taking over your bank account in the first place, and there was nothing in the contract that allowed me to do so, then the legal guarantee offered by the bank isn't in any sense legally necessary - it serves only to confirm that the contract doesn't allow me to do what your adviser claimed.

Or, to look at it another way - if someone tells you, incorrectly, that it is cold outside, causing you to decide not to go out on that basis, of what value is a true statement by someone else that it's actually warm?

If someone voted No on the basis that they either believed that Lisbon would allow conscription, or believed that there was sufficient doubt about it, then the guarantees serve to state that there is no doubt, and no conscription.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Again, confusion, uncertainty and competing versions of reasons to vote yes.

If I have learnt one thing here its that the garantees seem nothing more than a glorified PR exercise.

Garantees apparantly about nothing! Come on, thaqt means nothing.
These are presented by yes campaigners here as the answer to every worry people had.
But when questioned, suddenly I am told not to worry as they dont relate to the treaty directly anyway?

When I am being given garantees on issues that dont actually matter then thats another reason not to trust the politicians, and another reason to vote No.

Analogies about lawers and temperatures dont assuage worries about a treaty that will affect the future of the country and the EU.

Conscription is a red herring - but the EDA is not, and there is nothing addressing concerns on that.

Abortion is a red herring but the EU over-ruling the Irish Supreme court on any issue is not, and there is nothing addressing concerns on that.

I want to see garantees in terms directly applicable to the treaty, for example workers rights.
I dont like the current situation after the Laval judgement in Sweden, the recent article on farm workers in the UK's Independent and the Irish Ferries use of workers at local minimum wage with the most basic terms and conditions apply - initially they were to get below minimum wage!

I dont want to see EU nationals being used and abused in the same way Mexicans are in the US, and that situation is developing now.
Should Turkey becomne a member of the EU under current conditions the situation will become far worse.

K-9

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Garantees apparantly about nothing! Come on, thaqt means nothing.
These are presented by yes campaigners here as the answer to every worry people had.
But when questioned, suddenly I am told not to worry as they dont relate to the treaty directly anyway?

Unfortunately they can't address every No voters concerns. Your perception is that they answer every worry the No side had. I don't think anybody has said that.

Scofflaw wrote: »

SF gets plenty, and got plenty in the last referendum, although Libertas got more - and it's worth bearing in mind that there are plenty of people for whom SF were and are anathema. If the main thrust of the opposition is going to come from COIR et al, then that's going to be reflected in the coverage - and so far there doesn't seem to be anyone else making the same amount of noise. As for Justin Barrett, he didn't have any difficulty staying out of the spotlight last time.

In fairness, it was rather hard to avoid Libertas the last time.

Hobo Sapiens

bibbly wrote: »

...I am voting YES to lisbon, as i believe it is in the best interests of our country ...

Care to say why? With detailed reasons, backed up by relevant passages from the treaty?

Manuss

Seems to me that people are lining up to attack Coir, without actually addressing the issues raised, (thread author excepted).
If you believe their points are wrong then deal with those points. For example, what will the voting strength of Ireland and Germany be, and where can we find the evidence?
Otherwise it just seems to me that a bunch of people just can't handle the truth that Coir is telling you.

Scofflaw

Manuss wrote: »

Seems to me that people are lining up to attack Coir, without actually addressing the issues raised, (thread author excepted).
If you believe their points are wrong then deal with those points. For example, what will the voting strength of Ireland and Germany be, and where can we find the evidence?
Otherwise it just seems to me that a bunch of people just can't handle the truth that Coir is telling you.

The voting strengths have been discussed at great length here, and any simple comparison of voting strengths between Lisbon and Nice is impossible, because the systems are quite different. As to the things that COIR claim about abortion, they're completely false. COIR is telling no "truth", they're spreading lies and falsehoods.

regards,
Scofflaw

K-9

Manuss wrote: »

Seems to me that people are lining up to attack Coir, without actually addressing the issues raised, (thread author excepted).
If you believe their points are wrong then deal with those points. For example, what will the voting strength of Ireland and Germany be, and where can we find the evidence?
Otherwise it just seems to me that a bunch of people just can't handle the truth that Coir is telling you.

It probably would be easier to state the "truth" and go from there, though it has been discussed at length before, on various threads.

Manuss

It would seem to me that the protocol protects our right to decide our own abortion laws. The problem is that Gerard Hogan, a respected constitutional lawyer told the Irish Times that the Supreme court would be eclipsed by the EU fundamental rights charter, the Irish member of the ECJ has said that its foolish to claim that the charter will not effect national laws, and the European Centre for Law and Justice said that an ECJ decision that abortion was a fundamental right under the charter would be binding on Ireland.
Granted that doesn't seem to make sense, but those working in the area where law is bindingly interpreted apparently believe that Lisbon would allow the EU courts impose abortion. That seems to back-up the Coir argument on abortion. At least where lawyers are concerned, its open to debate. Hardly the absolute position the government cheerleaders claim.

Scofflaw

Manuss wrote: »

It would seem to me that the protocol protects our right to decide our own abortion laws. The problem is that Gerard Hogan, a respected constitutional lawyer told the Irish Times that the Supreme court would be eclipsed by the EU fundamental rights charter, the Irish member of the ECJ has said that its foolish to claim that the charter will not effect national laws, and the European Centre for Law and Justice said that an ECJ decision that abortion was a fundamental right under the charter would be binding on Ireland.
Granted that doesn't seem to make sense, but those working in the area where law is bindingly interpreted apparently believe that Lisbon would allow the EU courts impose abortion. That seems to back-up the Coir argument on abortion. At least where lawyers are concerned, its open to debate. Hardly the absolute position the government cheerleaders claim.

Where's the bit where something overrides the existing (or proposed) protocol? Leaving aside the fact that the EU has no right to rule on abortion's legality and that the Charter cannot create any new competence for the EU - which together mean that the Charter cannot create an EU competence on the legality of abortion - the Charter, even at the hugest stretch of fevered imagination, will not be superior to the treaties, where our Amendment 40.3.3 is specifically protected from all EU interference.

regards,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

I'm no expert on this but I usually look at things to see if from a certain angle the point may be true. Often then this other angle has nothing to do with the point in question.

Manuss wrote: »

It would seem to me that the protocol protects our right to decide our own abortion laws. The problem is that Gerard Hogan, a respected constitutional lawyer told the Irish Times that the Supreme court would be eclipsed by the EU fundamental rights charter,

Possibly true in a general way for some laws, but surely the EU fundamental rights charter will be eclipsed by the treaty protocols for Ireland. The protocols are specific while the charter is not, so it's hard to see the protocol losing a legal battle.

Manuss wrote: »

the Irish member of the ECJ has said that its foolish to claim that the charter will not effect national laws,

Of course it could affect national laws, but again in this case with the existence of a very very specific protocol abortion laws could not be affected.

Manuss wrote: »

and the European Centre for Law and Justice said that an ECJ decision that abortion was a fundamental right under the charter would be binding on Ireland.

Well if there was no protocol maybe that might be true, but since there is a protocol... which again I will add is specific while the charter is vague... I cannot see any way the ECJ could affect Irish laws on abortion.

Manuss wrote: »

Granted that doesn't seem to make sense, but those working in the area where law is bindingly interpreted apparently believe that Lisbon would allow the EU courts impose abortion. That seems to back-up the Coir argument on abortion. At least where lawyers are concerned, its open to debate. Hardly the absolute position the government cheerleaders claim.

Remember that there are several states in the EU that have laws against abortion. If the EU started getting involved in this there would be chaos at a council level. So why isn't anyone panicing? Because it will not happen.

I'm open to correction as a lay person and not a lawyer, but surely if as the argument goes, there is conflict between the FRC and the abortion protocol, the protocol has to win. The courts job is to rule on what was meant by the treaties. It's 100% clear what the protocol means. The charter could be open to interpretation. 100% clear vs interpret. How could the court possibly rule that Irish abortion laws must be changed?!

Ix

BlitzKrieg

but surely the EU fundamental rights charter will be eclipsed by the treaty protocols for Ireland.

I think the wording of the protocol is very important. It specifies that nothing in the treaties can affect the irish constitutional stance on abortion.

Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in
the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of
Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

Now the issue that can be argued here is that the charter is not a treaty, but a seperate document that is referenced in Lisbon in the declaration section

1. Declaration concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has legally binding force, confirms
the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the
Member States.
The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or
establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined by the Treaties.

It could be argued very weakly that protocol 35 does not apply because the charter is not in Lisbon or any associated treaties, nor is it a treaty or an act by itself.

thankfully though the last line of the declaration covers protocol 35's arse with this

establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined by the Treaties.

If this wasnt here the court could have kept the whole issue away from the treaties, arguing that protocol 35 did not apply. But because the charter has been specified to not modify the powers and tasks as defined by Lisbon, that means it is subject to Protocol 35 for as long as abortion remains illegal as defined by our constitution.