Populism and Lies regarding Lisbon

Mario007

It comes across to me as quite strange that all the talk on lisbon is based on half truths and lies, and this applies to both sides. I just read through the thread on Toby Blair being EU president if you vote lisbon in.Then on politics.ie i read that Americo would be the new American currency should lisbon pass. And of course there is the classic phrase that voting no will get FF out of government. To be fair the yes side has its share of blame as well.The argument that lisbon will help ireland to recover economically is ridiculous as the statement that voting on lisbon is good because eu has been good to us.

So I would like to ask everyone to discuss the treaty itself, the articles,the implementations and not the demagogy that is floating around. I know a few people here that do indeed address the issues in the treaty and i would like to ask everyone else to do likewise.
Thanks

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mario007

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes and thats a shame, i mean we can seriously await a number of lies about what lisbon will lead to and of course the yes side will resort to the tactic of saying that without lisbon we will loose our commissioner (which is true, but its not the most important point for voting no).

ei.sdraob

I wouldn't trust anything you read on politics.ie

their main moderator is from Liebertas

but yes alot of tactics being used that would make Bush/Cheyney proud

just look at the front page of this forum > EU becoming like the USSR



regards
ei.sdraob | boards.ie

wylo

Mario007 wrote: »

So I would like to ask everyone to discuss the treaty itself, the articles,the implementations and not the demagogy that is floating around. I know a few people here that do indeed address the issues in the treaty and i would like to ask everyone else to do likewise.
Thanks

I tried to start something similar a few days ago , but with no success, the point was put to me that its the interpretation of the articles themselves that spawn the lies. So , no matter what, the thread will deteriorate into another lie fest. I have also realised there is a huge stubbornness from both sides of the field, no matter what info people are given they will not change their point of view. It just gets tiring at that stage.

Mario007

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I wouldn't trust anything you read on politics.ie

their main moderator is from Liebertas

but yes alot of tactics being used that would make Bush/Cheyney proud

just look at the front page of this forum > EU becoming like the USSR



regards
ei.sdraob | boards.ie

yes i noticed politics.ie attracts either full libertarians or many lefties and it makes it very frustrating then to discuss anything.

wylo wrote: »

I tried to start something similar a few days ago , but with no success, the point was put to me that its the interpretation of the articles themselves that spawn the lies. So , no matter what, the thread will deteriorate into another lie fest. I have also realised there is a huge stubbornness from both sides of the field, no matter what info people are given they will not change their point of view. It just gets tiring at that stage.

there are such things as the consolidated version of the Lisbon treaty, which is basically showing how each article of previous treaties is changed by lisbon(well there is a slovakian consolidate version, i dunno about an english one). that could be a nice place to start.
but i do agree with you that it gets tirign and irritating, just reading through the posts here. no matter how many times you state your argument and how strongly you support it the people would still say something like 'yeah but...'

RandomName2

I would love to be able to vote yes to Lisbon. I would always be naturally inclined towards it. But I just can't; and on multiple levels. In relation to the lies I (personally) find the lies of the yes side more distasteful.... perhaps because the yes side have more of a monopoly in being able to propagate such propaganda. Having said this, the lies of the 'no' side have had greater influence...

ei.sdraob

RandomName2 wrote: »

I would love to be able to vote yes to Lisbon. I would always be naturally inclined towards it. But I just can't; and on multiple levels. In relation to the lies I (personally) find the lies of the yes side more distasteful.... perhaps because the yes side have more of a monopoly in being able to propagate such propaganda. Having said this, the lies of the 'no' side have had greater influence...

what lies exactly from the Yes side?

RandomName2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what lies exactly from the Yes side?

After all the EU has done for Ireland, 'they' deserve a 'yes' vote.
Without a 'yes' the EU would fall apart.
Lisbon and the Constitution Treaty are unrelated.
The French and Dutch public have actually approved of Lisbon
A 'yes' vote will improve the Irish economy.
Irish representation in the EU Parliamenrt will be unaffected by Lisbon.
No voters are only concerned about lies distributed about Lisbon concerning areas such as abortion.
Lisbon makes almost no changes to the way the EU is run.
Ireland loses no vetoes.
It is not possible to have a funtioning economy in Europe without being a member of the EU.
The recession was partially caused by the 'no' vote.
The government chose to give the Irish people a referendum (and have decided off their own bat to provide the Irish people with another).
A 'no' vote would immediately consign Lisbon to the dustbin.
A 'no' vote would result in Ireland being thrown out of the EU.

oscarBravo

Have you got sources for those, or did you just make them up?

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

After all the EU has done for Ireland, 'they' deserve a 'yes' vote.
Without a 'yes' the EU would fall apart.
Lisbon and the Constitution Treaty are unrelated.
The French and Dutch public have actually approved of Lisbon
A 'yes' vote will improve the Irish economy.
Irish representation in the EU Parliamenrt will be unaffected by Lisbon.
No voters are only concerned about lies distributed about Lisbon concerning areas such as abortion.
Lisbon makes almost no changes to the way the EU is run.
Ireland loses no vetoes.
It is not possible to have a funtioning economy in Europe without being a member of the EU.
The recession was partially caused by the 'no' vote.
The government chose to give the Irish people a referendum (and have decided off their own bat to provide the Irish people with another).
A 'no' vote would immediately consign Lisbon to the dustbin.
A 'no' vote would result in Ireland being thrown out of the EU.

Are we going to discuss the next question: lies about lies?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you got sources for those, or did you just make them up?

Referendum posters (FF, Labour, FG)
Television and radio debates (RTE, TV3, Newstalk)
Newspaper articles (mainly Irish Times)

Think it was Eamon Gilmore who said 'rubbish, the Lisbon treaty is dead. It's gone.' after the last referendum (I think he was trying to shut up Ganley at the time).

But if you can't remember all the guff in the run up to the last referendum you can just wait a couple of weeks for the next campaign.

Scofflaw

I'd certainly agree some of those have been used:

RandomName2 wrote: »

After all the EU has done for Ireland, 'they' deserve a 'yes' vote.

Pretty much one of the major messages last time.

Without a 'yes' the EU would fall apart.

Given in conjunction with that quote about the EU being like a bicycle, yes.

Lisbon and the Constitution Treaty are unrelated.

"Unrelated"? No, not really. "Not identical" is claimed, certainly, but not "unrelated".

The French and Dutch public have actually approved of Lisbon

In the French case, by voting for Sarkozy? That does get said.

A 'yes' vote will improve the Irish economy.

Well, what's said is more that a No vote will damage it. I don't think many people are claiming a Yes will improve the Irish economy as such, although it's certainly being said that passing Lisbon will allow the EU to get on with the more pressing issue of the economy.

Irish representation in the EU Parliamenrt will be unaffected by Lisbon.

Why would that not be said? We have 12 MEPs now, we'd have 12 under Lisbon.

No voters are only concerned about lies distributed about Lisbon concerning areas such as abortion.

Nobody says those are the only things No voters are concerned about - they say that "a lot of No voters" were concerned about them, which is pretty accurate.

Lisbon makes almost no changes to the way the EU is run.

Haven't heard that one. It's called the "Reform Treaty" after all!

Ireland loses no vetoes.

Haven't heard that one either - would be surprised if anybody came out with such a complete porkie.

It is not possible to have a funtioning economy in Europe without being a member of the EU.

Again, haven't heard it.

The recession was partially caused by the 'no' vote.

I've never seen this explicitly claimed, and when I go to search for it what I mostly find is No proponents claiming its being claimed. I don't doubt it's part of the 'official' narrative, though.

The government chose to give the Irish people a referendum (and have decided off their own bat to provide the Irish people with another).

That doesn't seem inaccurate. If the government had decided that Crotty didn't apply - which is quite possible (feel free to say how it does) - they wouldn't have had to hold a referendum. If they hadn't wanted to hold a second referendum, they could simply have told the other member states that it was politically impossible.

Bear in mind that in the incredibly unlikely event that the 2007 General Election had resulted in a majority Sinn Fein government, there would probably not have been a referendum on Lisbon - the government does not have to pass, or even propose, the referendum bill.

A 'no' vote would immediately consign Lisbon to the dustbin.

It was mostly the No side who said that - let's face it, the precedent from Nice, and from Maastricht, should make it obvious that a rejection doesn't automatically kill off a treaty. You could make a case that Gilmore believed it, but I don't think a point was made of it before the vote.

A 'no' vote would result in Ireland being thrown out of the EU.

There are people saying that, but nobody official, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw has responded to those statements better than I could.

The point I would make to people concerned about the state of the EU is this. Will a "no" vote improve the EU? I would argue not, even if you have serious isues with the EU.

With a yes vote, progress will continue. If you feel changes need to be made you can push for them. Go talk to your TDs and MEPs. Get involved. With a no vote all progress will be stopped for years. Speaking generally of the EU needing to "change" "listen to the people" is meaningless when the same people who complain elect the same politicans. You might complain that you have no choice. That the alternatives are far left/far right, but that is the choce you make. If you want a far left or right EU you can vote that way. If you want a middle of the spectrum EU... well that's what you have.


I'm not going to scaremonger. If there is a no the politicans will scramble about and try to find a solution. Some people may laugh and say good riddance let the politicans scramble, but it's we the people who will be left with uncertainty and doubt. Others may be willing to let the politicans worry, but I worry too.

ix.

RandomName2

Another lie I forgot: no negotiation was possible with Lisbon (to counter the no side 'better deal' argument). This is only 'not a lie' if one accepts that the guarantees are meaningless, which makes the value placed on the guarantees by the government in itself deceitful (it is not enough to argue that meaningless counters meaningless if it is done so through blatant falsehood)

There were others... just can't think of them at the moment.

*

Anyway, it's my vain hope that a defeat of Lisbon would make progress develop differently within the EU, and also the manner in which the extant infrastructure is changed and redeveloped. Vain, because nothing changed after the defeat of the Constitution Treaty, apart from Brussels' expectations concerning ratification via referenda. How depressing. Nevertheless, that's hardly sufficient grounds for me to change my vote... unless you are to argue that another 'no' jeopardises Crotty (in which case, what is the point in Crotty in the first place?)

Oh, and the Irish MEP numbers are going to be reduced - I don't see how it could be argued otherwise?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Another lie I forgot: no negotiation was possible with Lisbon (to counter the no side 'better deal' argument). This is only 'not a lie' if one accepts that the guarantees are meaningless, which makes the value placed on the guarantees by the government in itself deceitful (it is not enough to argue that meaningless counters meaningless if it is done so through blatant falsehood)

No, that misses the point of the guarantees, which are purely to deal with the false issues raised by the No side. That doesn't make them meaningless, even though they don't change Lisbon itself.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Anyway, it's my vain hope that a defeat of Lisbon would make progress develop differently within the EU, and also the manner in which the extant infrastructure is changed and redeveloped. Vain, because nothing changed after the defeat of the Constitution Treaty, apart from Brussels' expectations concerning ratification via referenda. How depressing. Nevertheless, that's hardly sufficient grounds for me to change my vote... unless you are to argue that another 'no' jeopardises Crotty (in which case, what is the point in Crotty in the first place?)

There's a limited number of things that you can get 27 countries to agree to. They tend to come up pretty regularly. The idea that voting No will suddenly cause the 27 member states to abandon all the current systems in favour of radical changes would involve a set of radical changes that were generally agreed on by those who want to abandon the current systems - unfortunately, there is no such set of changes.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh, and the Irish MEP numbers are going to be reduced - I don't see how it could be argued otherwise?

They've been reduced, under Nice - are you saying they would be further reduced under Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

They've been reduced, under Nice - are you saying they would be further reduced under Lisbon?

Er... yes. Down to eight if memory serves me correctly. And the number of German MEPs double. It seems pretty straight forward

BlitzKrieg

RandomName2 wrote: »

Er... yes. Down to eight if memory serves me correctly. And the number of German MEPs double. It seems pretty straight forward

er you are really confused now, our number of mep's are not being reduced to 8 under lisbon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_European_Union

marco_polo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Er... yes. Down to eight if memory serves me correctly. And the number of German MEPs double. It seems pretty straight forward

Do you bother to check any anti Lisbon points you hear? Or do you just automatically soak everything you hear as fact without thinking for yourself?

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

RandomName2 wrote:

Er... yes. Down to eight if memory serves me correctly. And the number of German MEPs double. It seems pretty straight forward

Do you bother to check any anti Lisbon points you hear? Or do you just automatically soak everything you hear as fact without thinking for yourself?

Actually, it's unusual for RandomName2 to be factually wrong in such a way. The number of German MEPs drops from 99 to 96 under Lisbon, while the Irish MEPs stays the same at 12. We dropped from 13 under the Nice arrangements, which reduced the Parliament from 785 to 736. Lisbon raises it again to 751, but that's not quite enough to get us back our 13th MEP without a population increase.

surprised,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... The number of German MEPs drops from 99 to 96 under Lisbon, while the Irish MEPs stays the same at 12. We dropped from 13 under the Nice arrangements, which reduced the Parliament from 785 to 736. Lisbon raises it again to 751, but that's not quite enough to get us back our 13th MEP without a population increase.

You mean that we need a few more immigrants?

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's unusual for RandomName2 to be factually wrong in such a way. The number of German MEPs drops from 99 to 96 under Lisbon, while the Irish MEPs stays the same at 12. We dropped from 13 under the Nice arrangements, which reduced the Parliament from 785 to 736. Lisbon raises it again to 751, but that's not quite enough to get us back our 13th MEP without a population increase.

surprised,
Scofflaw

Fair enough, a bit of a substantial error all the same. I haven't been around these parts in a while.

sink

marco_polo wrote: »

Fair enough, a bit of a substantial error all the same. I haven't been around these parts in a while.

Busy rediscovering China?

RandomName2

marco_polo wrote: »

Do you bother to check any anti Lisbon points you hear? Or do you just automatically soak everything you hear as fact without thinking for yourself?

Sure I heard I from a reliable source.... oh well, can't be right all the time I suppose. Just as well I'm not being graded.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure I heard I from a reliable source.... oh well, can't be right all the time I suppose. Just as well I'm not being graded.

In principle, there is no reason why the number of MEPs couldn't be adjusted in future to more accurately reflect the population distribution of the member states (i.e. larger states would get more MEPs, smaller states less).

However, unless the voting system in the Council of Ministers was also adjusted to compensate the smaller member for their loss of influence in the EP, there is no way the smaller states would accept it (in other words, the smaller states would want more votes vis-a-vis the larger states in the Council of Ministers to ensure their interests are protected).

Needless to say, this would require (future) changes to the EU Treaties - either post-Nice or post-Lisbon - with all the attendant complications that go with that.

It would also raise real interesting issues about how the voting systems in the two institutions should be changed, and which systems would in practice be better for the EU as a whole and, of course, for each member state themselves.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

In principle, there is no reason why the number of MEPs couldn't be adjusted in future to more accurately reflect the population distribution of the member states (i.e. larger states would get more MEPs, smaller states less).

However, unless the voting system in the Council of Ministers was also adjusted to compensate the smaller member for their loss of influence in the EP, there is no way the smaller states would accept it (in other words, the smaller states would want more votes vis-a-vis the larger states in the Council of Ministers to ensure their interests are protected).

Needless to say, this would require (future) changes to the EU Treaties - either post-Nice or post-Lisbon - with all the attendant complications that go with that.

It would also raise real interesting issues about how the voting systems in the two institutions should be changed, and which systems would in practice be better for the EU as a whole and, of course, for each member state themselves.

Like everything else in the EU, it's a compromise between the principle of "one state one vote" and "one citizen one vote". We have an obvious preference for the former, because we are the smallest EU state we bother to think about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mario007

Scofflaw wrote: »

Like everything else in the EU, it's a compromise between the principle of "one state one vote" and "one citizen one vote". We have an obvious preference for the former, because we are the smallest EU state we bother to think about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

even though there are much smaller eu states and some states that are about the size of ireland...its a nicely isolated world we live in...

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what lies exactly from the Yes side?

Dick Roche on Late Night Live on Newstalk in 2008 telling Declan Carty there wouldn't be a second referendum if we voted no. This is already in the public domain. He was asked by Declan Carty and he replied "no".

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Dick Roche on Late Night Live on Newstalk in 2008 telling Declan Carty there wouldn't be a second referendum if we voted no. This is already in the public domain. He was asked by Declan Carty and he replied "no".

As far as I remember, that, like Gilmore's comments, came after the vote. Neither of them, therefore, are either part of the referendum campaigns, or relevant to the Treaty. If we're simply going to list every time Dick Roche has been less than honest, we would be here for weeks - instead, the question is concerned with lies told about the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I remember, that, like Gilmore's comments, came after the vote. Neither of them, therefore, are either part of the referendum campaigns, or relevant to the Treaty. If we're simply going to list every time Dick Roche has been less than honest, we would be here for weeks - instead, the question is concerned with lies told about the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It came before the vote. I was listening to it at the time.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It came before the vote. I was listening to it at the time.

Fair enough. If it formed part of the government narrative, then it qualifies.

corrected,
Scofflaw