Pro Lisbon Treaty arguments

Akrasia

1. We have to remain 'at the heart of europe'
Translation, we must appease the germans.



That appears to be the only argument.
Everything else focuses on the imagined negative consequences should we not appease the germans.

I find this incredibly funny as all the pro lisbon people tie themselves in knots complaining about how people voted no last time, over issues that weren't in the treaty.

Nothing in the Pro Lisbon 2 campaign is actually related to the treaty itself. It's just a scare campaign about us being isolated if we vote no.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

I find this incredibly funny as all the pro lisbon people tie themselves in knots complaining about how people voted no last time, over issues that weren't in the treaty.

For humour and issues that weren't in the Treaty, I dont think anyone in the Yes side beat the

Ban Foxhunting, Say No to Lisbon

posters in Galway.

And surely

Keep Ireland Irish

slogan in some No campaigns was also high on the humour/irrelevance lists?

ei.sdraob

* vote no if you dont know

* yes and you will be aborted

* no or your sons will be conscripted

please my sides hurt from laughing

Dinner

Akrasia wrote: »

I find this incredibly funny as all the pro lisbon people tie themselves in knots complaining about how people voted no last time, over issues that weren't in the treaty.

Nothing in the Pro Lisbon 2 campaign is actually related to the treaty itself. It's just a scare campaign about us being isolated if we vote no.

I find it incredibly funny that you don't appear to have done any research into the subject before posting this thread. PopeBuckfast even gives a link to Sink's excellant post on the subject in his sig. Link

ei.sdraob

Akrasia wrote: »

1. We have to remain 'at the heart of europe'
Translation, we must appease the germans.

on a more serious note

anyone have exact figures of how many dozens of billions euro is being wired from europe to cover our ever increasing deficits? and to keep the welfare/public sector gravy train rolling

I request the OP to do abit of research before sprouting more nonsense

pop over to the European Politics forum for reprogramming

edit: anyone in Galway remember how the Yes posters were vandalized, with smaller poster underneath attached to Yes posters, saying "Do as we say or else!"

not funny at all

|

Akrasia

The responses so far have been extremely demonstrative of the point I was making.

All the yes side appear to be doing are A derriding no campaigners for mentioning things that aren't in the treaty while simultaniously alluding that if we vote no again, we'll be isolated in europe (show me which article in the treaty says this?)

marco_polo

Akrasia wrote: »

The responses so far have been extremely demonstrative of the point I was making.

All the yes side appear to be doing are A derriding no campaigners for mentioning things that aren't in the treaty while simultaniously alluding that if we vote no again, we'll be isolated in europe (show me which article in the treaty says this?)

How can there be an article in a treaty that covers the event of it not being ratified?

marco_polo

Akrasia wrote: »

The responses so far have been extremely demonstrative of the point I was making.

All the yes side appear to be doing are A derriding no campaigners for mentioning things that aren't in the treaty while simultaniously alluding that if we vote no again, we'll be isolated in europe (show me which article in the treaty says this?)

There are numerous positive reasons for voting yes, some good ones highlighted above. Unfortunately as they have nothing to do with us squeezing more money out of the EU they don't seem to count in most peoples eyes.

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

All the yes side appear to be doing are A derriding no campaigners for mentioning things that aren't in the treaty while simultaniously alluding that if we vote no again, we'll be isolated in europe (show me which article in the treaty says this?)

So I take it you completely ignored the link you were given to sinks post? Let me help you:

Reasons to vote YES <- click it, its a link

P. Breathnach

Akrasia wrote: »

... All the yes side appear to be doing are A derriding no campaigners for mentioning things that aren't in the treaty while simultaniously alluding that if we vote no again, we'll be isolated in europe (show me which article in the treaty says this?)

The tone and content of your opening post was derisive. Are we to take it that you actually wanted a calm discussion of the issues? I formed the impression that you were just indulging in cheap shot tactics.

Sam Vimes

Akrasia wrote: »

The responses so far have been extremely demonstrative of the point I was making.

All the yes side appear to be doing are A derriding no campaigners for mentioning things that aren't in the treaty while simultaniously alluding that if we vote no again, we'll be isolated in europe (show me which article in the treaty says this?)

It's not about things that aren't spelled out in the treaty, it's about red herrings and lies that are not only not in the treaty, but are in no way affected by the treaty. Neutrality, abortion, taxation and conscription will not change regardless of how we vote but it is possible that a no vote will leave us isolated even though there is no specific article stating it.

Dob74

marco_polo wrote: »

There are numerous positive reasons for voting yes, some good ones highlighted above. Unfortunately as they have nothing to do with us squeezing more money out of the EU they don't seem to count in most peoples eyes.

So what part of the treaty do you believe in the most. Or are you just following the your polictal masters?
I didn't see one reason pointedout as a reason to vote yes , just the usual anti No rubbish.
If you are a neo-liberal you probably agree with most of the treaty.
But since the majority of people arent Neo-Liberals, I cant see it being passed on the merits of the treaty.
Just the weight of power of the Yes can push it over.

Dinner

Dob74 wrote: »

I didn't see one reason pointedout as a reason to vote yes , just the usual anti No rubbish.

Did you miss the bit where twice a link has been provided that covers many reasons to vote yes?

Akrasia

marco_polo wrote: »

How can there be an article in a treaty that covers the event of it not being ratified?

98% of all the pro lisbon commentary is about 'placing Ireland at the heart of europe' Where is that in the treaty text?
The flip side to that point is if we vote no again, we will be isolated and shunned by the 'real' europeans.

The point of this thread was in relation to the debate so far by the Yes campaigners who have thus far, refused to address any of the actual treaty in any of the television or radio debates that I have heard. Nor have I seen any of the arguments on the linked post recreated in public debate (mainly because they are extremely controversial and there is a good chance many voters will be put off by the idea of closer cooperation in policing, more military cooperation, and a single foreign minister because these things all speed up the move towards a United states of europe and the loss of national sovergnity that entails.

That is the real nub of the debate. Many many people are legitimately opposed to the expansion of E.U. from an economic trading block into a federal superstate.

turgon

Ok Ill make it SUPER SUPER EASY for ye all.

9 Reasons to Vote YES to Lisbon

sink wrote: »

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.

The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally

Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

- gone as of Lisbon II

3. Permanent President of the European Council

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the role, this causes the President to push his/her countries agenda often against the will of others. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state.

4. The Councils must meet in the open.

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own.

6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers

The treaty provides for a greater role for EU militaries to co-operate on UN mandated peacekeeping missions, while guaranteeing our neutrality.

7. Includes charter of human rights

For the first time EU all laws will be based on a charter of rights guaranteeing all EU citizens human rights.

8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing

The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.

9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one

The Lisbon creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy'. This is to provide a coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, few governments are clear who to contact in regards to specific areas.

10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.

Akrasia

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not about things that aren't spelled out in the treaty, it's about red herrings and lies that are not only not in the treaty, but are in no way affected by the treaty. Neutrality, abortion, taxation and conscription will not change regardless of how we vote but it is possible that a no vote will leave us isolated even though there is no specific article stating it.

So we are appeasing the germans then. What would be the line of what we would have to accept in order to avoid alienating the E.U. elites? (because the drive for this treaty certainly isn't coming from the citizens of europe thats for sure.)

ei.sdraob

Dob74 wrote: »

So what part of the treaty do you believe in the most. Or are you just following the your polictal masters?
I didn't see one reason pointedout as a reason to vote yes , just the usual anti No rubbish.
If you are a neo-liberal you probably agree with most of the treaty.
But since the majority of people arent Neo-Liberals, I cant see it being passed on the merits of the treaty.
Just the weight of power of the Yes can push it over.

one major reason to vote YES would be the energy policy

being able to tell Russia etc to lower energy prices and not being held ransom as we are now

they are currently playing each european country against another, and since Ireland is the last country in the pipeline it directly impacts us, with high energy costs being cited as main reason for not doing business here


* we dont want to build nuclear power,
* we cant afford to blanket the country in windmills and powerlines,
* burning coal and turf already releases a **** load of CO2 and radioactive ash (yes a coal plant releases more radioactivity than a nuke plant)
* we have no oil resources
* turf is running out with bord na mona ceasin operations in a decade
* gas is available but expensive to extract (not to mention farmers object to pipelines)

and we cant get cheap energy as we are bidding against everyone else in EU, not together

please please tell me how voting NO would help towards helping with our energy issues

oh and dont forget that a NO would mean pulling out funding for EuroAtom, so forget about:
* getting any fusion technology if it ever develops
* sending our engineers and scientists to high prestige locations like CERN to gather skills (which ironically is the birthplace of the web, the very thing we are communicating in now)

so once again how will voting NO not harm our energy position?

and yes I do know what im talking about as i worked in a power generation company...

turgon

Did you read the link/post #15 on this thread Akrasia?

Martin 2

Akrasia wrote: »

1. We have to remain 'at the heart of europe'
Translation, we must appease the germans.



That appears to be the only argument.
Everything else focuses on the imagined negative consequences should we not appease the germans.

I find this incredibly funny as all the pro lisbon people tie themselves in knots complaining about how people voted no last time, over issues that weren't in the treaty.

Nothing in the Pro Lisbon 2 campaign is actually related to the treaty itself. It's just a scare campaign about us being isolated if we vote no.

There are 27 countries and 500 million people in the EU, Germany is the most populous country but with a population of 82 million it is less than 17% of the EU population, yet you insist on singling them out for some reason. Your translation of we must 'remain at the heart of Europe' as 'we must appease the Germans', is just that, your translation and cannot be attributed to the yes side (unless you have a source) and certainly not to me, a yes supporter.

Btw, I'm not German but I worked in Germany and generally I don't like to see countries singled out unless there's a good reason, remember there are many nationalities reading these pages.

Sam Vimes

Akrasia wrote: »

So we are appeasing the germans then. What would be the line of what we would have to accept in order to avoid alienating the E.U. elites? (because the drive for this treaty certainly isn't coming from the citizens of europe thats for sure.)

No we are not appeasing the germans. We are simply not rejecting something that took 5 years and millions to draft because we're too afraid to ratify it without reading it and we can't be arsed reading it. It's bound to get people's backs up

And you really need to stop ignoring the people giving the reasons to vote yes while simultaneously saying no one's giving you a reason

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No we are not appeasing the germans. We are simply not rejecting something that took 5 years and millions to draft because we're too afraid to ratify it without reading it and we can't be arsed reading it. It's bound to get people's backs up

And you really need to stop ignoring the people giving the reasons to vote yes while simultaneously saying no one's giving you a reason

... a treaty that the Irish hand had large part in writing and negotiating

Akrasia

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No we are not appeasing the germans. We are simply not rejecting something that took 5 years and millions to draft because we're too afraid to ratify it without reading it and we can't be arsed reading it. It's bound to get people's backs up

And you really need to stop ignoring the people giving the reasons to vote yes while simultaneously saying no one's giving you a reason

I did address those reasons in a later post, and this thread was always about the debate on the treaty by the pro lisbon campaigners.

Can anyone point me to a published article or a podcast of an interview where anyone from the yes campaign mentions the reasons linked to (and then pointed at by 4 other people) on this thread

Iwasfrozen

turgon wrote: »

Did you read the link/post #15 on this thread Akrasia?

To make it super duper mega easy for him, I've posted to bloody thing in a pm. :cool:

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

Can anyone point me to a published article or a podcast of an interview where anyone from the yes campaign mentions the reasons linked to (and then pointed at by 4 other people) on this thread

Are you saying those views are only made valid if you can find an article or a podcast confirming them?

Maybe you should just get out the DoFF white paper and read that rather than trying to find some (undoubtedly no side leaning) web link.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To make it super duper mega easy for him, I've posted to bloody thing in a pm. :cool:

wow, this is pretty surreal. It's like I have a gaggle of little lisbon pixies all reciting the same little rhyme in acapella

Scofflaw

Akrasia wrote: »

I did address those reasons in a later post, and this thread was always about the debate on the treaty by the pro lisbon campaigners.

Can anyone point me to a published article or a podcast of an interview where anyone from the yes campaign mentions the reasons linked to (and then pointed at by 4 other people) on this thread

Ah - in that case it might be a good thing to clarify that you're talking about the 'formal' campaigns. On that, I don't disagree at all - there's been precious little attempt to engage in any positive argument. Possibly we ought to post sink's reasons to the various campaign managers.

However, it should be obvious from the Yes arguments posted here that there are positive arguments for Lisbon, so I'm not sure how you can put forward the idea that the dearth of positives form the formal campaigns is the result of the Treaty, rather than the result of the kind of intellectual laziness that usually characterises Irish politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen

Akrasia wrote: »

wow, this is pretty surreal. It's like I have a gaggle of little lisbon pixies all reciting the same little rhyme in acapella

You ask for reasons then when we give them to you you call us pixies ?
Hmmm, I think someones soapboxing.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

Are you saying those views are only made valid if you can find an article or a podcast confirming them?

Maybe you should just get out the DoFF white paper and read that rather than trying to find some (undoubtedly no side leaning) web link.

No, I'm saying the yes campaign thus far has barely referred to the actual treaty and it looks as though that is their strategy for the rest of the 'debate'. Sneering at no voters, and scaring the neutrals into thinking we'll be kicked out of the EEC if we vote no

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

No, I'm saying the yes campaign thus far

What Yes campaign?????

Generation Yes have been keeping to the facts alone asfaik.

Please provide details of Yes campaigns that are scaremongering.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You ask for reasons then when we give them to you you call us pixies ?
Hmmm, I think someones soapboxing.

I asked for arguments, and I get 5 or 6 different people linking to and pm'ing the exact same list of 10 reasons to vote for lisbon. It's amazing how the party has managed to keep everyone so 'on message'

Scofflaw

Slow up, people! Akrasia is making the perfectly reasonable point that the formal Yes campaigns - the government, political parties, IBEC et al - have put forward little or nothing in the way of positive arguments.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

What Yes campaign?????

Generation Yes have been keeping to the facts alone asfaik.

Please provide details of Yes campaigns that are scaremongering.

I am someone who reads the papers every day, watches the news and listens to news radio every day. I am referring to the government ministers, the opposition TDs, the 'celebrities' the ex taoiseach and retired elders who have been paraded in front of us to plead with us to accept the treaty.

I haven't seen any interviews or read any articles in the media where the yes side refer to any specific articles in the treaty except when they're countering specific points put forward by the no campaigners.

IF you can find some, I'd be interested in seeing links so I can read them or listen to them myself.

Iwasfrozen

1) You shouldn't base you decision on what the Government says.
2) We don't control what issues IBEC focus on.
3) It's not like Choir and Sinn Finé are champions of truth.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1) You shouldn't base you decision on what the Government says.
2) We don't control what issues IBEC focus on.
3) It's not like Choir and Sinn Finé are champions of truth.

agreed on all 3

turgon

I dont think theres any formal Yes campaign as yet. At the moment its just various people spouting, its not even together.

Iwasfrozen

Then what is your general arguement for this thread?

turgon

His original argument was that there were no good reasons to vote Yes to Lisbon, this thread had nothing to do with the Yes campaign.

Akrasia wrote: »

Pro Lisbon Treaty arguments
1. We have to remain 'at the heart of europe'
Translation, we must appease the germans.

That appears to be the only argument.
Everything else focuses on the imagined negative consequences should we not appease the germans.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Akrasia wrote: »

we must appease the germans.

I think that line has vile connotations, and I think they are there on purpose.

Dinner

Akrasia wrote: »

I asked for arguments, and I get 5 or 6 different people linking to and pm'ing the exact same list of 10 reasons to vote for lisbon.

You asked for arguments, you then ignored the first link.
The link was provided again, this time the big friendly letters seemed to catch your attention, but Dob74 didn't seem to cop it, so they were posted again. If you and Dob spotted them first time round you wouldn't have people pm'ing it to you.

Slightly more on topic. You won't find anyone here defending the Yes camp for the previous referendum. They did an awful job, truly awful. They were given a complex treaty and rather than explaining it, they boiled it down to little slogans that fitted on posters based losely on the idea that Europe has been good to us. Which it has, but that has nothing to do with the treaty.

The no camp on the other hand made stuff up, claiming that things were in the treaty when they were not, knowing full well that a large number of people will make up their minds based on the slogans on posters. All they had to do was print them. The hysteria took care of the rest.

For the next referendum, the campaign hasn't really started yet, so you should lay of condeming this campaign as a failure until they do **** up. I fear that you won't be short on opportunities.

brianthebard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1) You shouldn't base you decision on what the Government says.

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

The government is not necessarily the government...which is to say that while I, for example, couldn't care less what FF say about the Treaty (except insofar as they affect the campaign), I do care what the DFA have to say. The former are politicians, the latter experts in international treaties. Both of them, alas, can be indiscriminately described as "the government".

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

The government is not necessarily the government...which is to say that while I, for example, couldn't care less what FF say about the Treaty (except insofar as they affect the campaign), I do care what the DFA have to say. The former are politicians, the latter experts in international treaties. Both of them, alas, can be indiscriminately described as "the government".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't see the point in the distinction.

P. Breathnach

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't see the point in the distinction.

It's clearly enough spelled out by Scofflaw. In one mode of thinking about it, the government comprises politicians; in another mode, it comprises the civil service.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't see the point in the distinction.

Do you really not? Why not? It's a very basic distinction: our civil service isn't simply an arm of the governing party, and their tenure and promotion is internally organised and not subject to political control. As far as it's possible to do so, they are apolitical, because they have to work with whatever government is elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Dob74 wrote: »

So what part of the treaty do you believe in the most. Or are you just following the your polictal masters?
I didn't see one reason pointedout as a reason to vote yes , just the usual anti No rubbish.
If you are a neo-liberal you probably agree with most of the treaty.
But since the majority of people arent Neo-Liberals, I cant see it being passed on the merits of the treaty.
Just the weight of power of the Yes can push it over.

While this is neither here nor there the main opponent of the treaty the last time a neo liberal? I don't see the EU as overtly liberal or Socalist is pretty well balanced to my eye.

I certainly don't need the government to make up my mind for me on this treaty, for one thing I would be waiting a long long time for information and there is not much they have to say that intrests me currently. I did my bit at the last GE, it is a pity more of us did not follow suit, but I refuse to use an unrelated issue of a european treaty as an excuse to make a futile point.

marco_polo

Akrasia wrote: »

I am someone who reads the papers every day, watches the news and listens to news radio every day. I am referring to the government ministers, the opposition TDs, the 'celebrities' the ex taoiseach and retired elders who have been paraded in front of us to plead with us to accept the treaty.

I haven't seen any interviews or read any articles in the media where the yes side refer to any specific articles in the treaty except when they're countering specific points put forward by the no campaigners.

IF you can find some, I'd be interested in seeing links so I can read them or listen to them myself.

Good points, the offical campaign was been pretty much hopeless the last time around, although I don't think it has started in earnest yet I am not overly hopefull that things will be much different this time around.

That is not quite the same as 'There are no good reasons to vote yes'. Why didn't you use this as the OP.

karlog

Can someone give me a brief explanation on what will happen if we join and if we dont?

I dont know anything about the lisbon treaty:(

turgon

karlog wrote: »

Can someone give me a brief explanation on what will happen if we join and if we dont?

Its not about joining anything as such, its about reforming the EU. If Lisbon is passed the EU will change in certain ways. So its mostly boring arguments that wont strike your interest.

One of the pro-Lisbon posters, sink, came up with his excellent and oft-quoted list of 10 Reasons to Vote Yes. That was for Lisbon 1, because of the guarantees Lisbon 2 wont include point number 2 in sinks post.

If we say No to Lisbon the EU stays the way it is now. Some negatives to this include making it harder for more countries (like Iceland) to join.

There is an ongoing debate about the "message" saying No to Lisbon will send to the EU and to corporations such as Intel, ie that we arent pro-EU. While that argument may have some merit I believe there are enough reasons in sinks post alone to vote Yes.

When it comes to voting just examine what your vote can do. For example some people are annoyed we have a second referendum. But at the end of the day voting No will not change that. I would say to people, above all else use your vote responsibly! At the end of the day its your vote, and vote the way you want.



Edit: if youve problems understanding sinks post the Wikipedia entry for 'EU' would be a good place to start learning about how the EU works.

Mario007

karlog wrote: »

Can someone give me a brief explanation on what will happen if we join and if we dont?

I dont know anything about the lisbon treaty:(

i'm sure there will be people here that can explain it better than me, but let me try:

if we vote no it basically means the eu you know now stays in place, the only change will be that there might be decrease in the number of the eu commissioners. eu will take around 3-5 years to come up with yet another treaty and we'll be voting again.
to ireland it will cause, apparently, great dismay. the head of the treasury has said yesterday on six one that after the last no the moneylenders were very upset with ireland(mainly because those moneylenders were all big european nations) and it basically damaged our reputation and money borrowing ability. we can assume this to happen yet again. also there is a talk of changing lisbon so it is only applied to the 26 nations and not ireland which would mean that ireland would really be put on the periphery of the eu.

now the yes vote basically gets lisbon working(the czechs and polish president has said they'd ratify the treaty if ireland votes yes). this means the eu will be fundamental changed. the ten reason for voting yes(and also the ten big changes) have been outlined earlier in this thread. i would also point out that the lisbon treaty gives more power to the national parliaments which is balanced off with lisbon taking away national sovereignty in some fields. also the number of the commissioners stays the same and the eu can follow its policy of expansion which is being put on hold now under nice, because the politicians think that nice's criteria for expansion are outdated.

thats about all i can think of right now

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you really not? Why not? It's a very basic distinction: our civil service isn't simply an arm of the governing party, and their tenure and promotion is internally organised and not subject to political control. As far as it's possible to do so, they are apolitical, because they have to work with whatever government is elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx

You were referring to the dept of foreign affairs, correct? Who's on the home page there? Considering all parties in the Dail bar Sinn Fein support Lisbon the party distinction means nothing on this particular issue. Furthermore, the civil service still answers to the Government, does it not?

K-9

Akrasia wrote: »

wow, this is pretty surreal. It's like I have a gaggle of little lisbon pixies all reciting the same little rhyme in acapella

Jaysus, you should try politics.ie, but I see your point.

In fairness, there are only so many good reasons for voting yes, as there are only so many good reasons to vote No.

Akrasia wrote: »

I asked for arguments, and I get 5 or 6 different people linking to and pm'ing the exact same list of 10 reasons to vote for lisbon. It's amazing how the party has managed to keep everyone so 'on message'

There isn't really anything in there you can say is good for Ireland. For the EU, Yes and therefor indirectly Ireland.

I like the common energy policy and common foreign policy (with the 27 countries agreement).

I liked less Commissioners but sure that ones gone!

Don't particularly like the defence parts, more for selfish political reasons, but 3/4 countries who are neutral can't hold back the rest. Neutrality is respected for Ireland and the other 2/3 countries.

brianthebard wrote: »

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

Our advisors and officials are highly thought of and respected in the EU. The Govt. tends to actually listen to them more on EU issues than national ones!