Canvassing for No vote

worldrepublic

Can any one name some good organisations, local or otherwise?

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

Can any one name some good organisations, local or otherwise?

Canvassing for a no vote? Joe Higgins's Socialist Party, Cóir, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, Patricia McKenna's disaffected Greens, Liber -- oops, sorry, forget the last one. You are spoiled for choice.

Mario007

hey you stole my thread title!:eek:

worldrepublic

Little bit of research... People Before Profit are very solid and accessible.

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

Little bit of research... People Before Profit are very solid and accessible.

Except for the title, though, you might as well just attach yourself to the Socialist Workers' Party*.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*possibly that's more properly the Socialist Worker's Party - I'm never sure exactly how many socialist workers they actually have

Mario007

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except for the title, though, you might as well just attach yourself to the Socialist Workers' Party*.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*possibly that's more properly the Socialist Worker's Party - I'm never sure exactly how many socialist workers they actually have

i think there's about 101 socialist workers out there...but 100 of them are socialist politicians...so they're not really working...that leaves just one:D

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Can any one name some good organisations, local or otherwise?

I thought you were a yes man?

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

Little bit of research... People Before Profit are very solid and accessible.

Really? It seems that they plan to fight dirty:

Councillor Bríd Smith of the People Before Profit Alliance said ... the Government was experiencing a tough period and that unfavourable items such as the report of An Bord Snip Nua and Nama should be linked to the campaign.

Source: http://www.irishtimes.net/newspaper/ireland/2009/0819/1224252871867.html

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Really? It seems that they plan to fight dirty:

Source: http://www.irishtimes.net/newspaper/ireland/2009/0819/1224252871867.html

A debate full of left-wing fishwives will inevitably involve red herrings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

I thought you were a yes man?

Woman actually. I've switched. Is that so questionable?

Macha

worldrepublic wrote: »

Woman actually. I've switched. Is that so questionable?

I see you're an advocate of Concern.

Did you know that Concern supports the Lisbon Treaty?

"The Lisbon Treaty clearly states that the reduction and eradication of poverty is the primary objective of the EU’s development policy. It reaffirms the EU’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and to reaching the target of giving 0.7 percent of GNP to overseas development” said Mr Tom Arnold, Chief Executive of Concern.

http://www.concern.net/news/concern-welcomes-lisbon-treaty-focus-poverty

On topic - I don't actually know of any grass roots 'no' groups comparable to those of the Yes side. Most, if not all, of the above are political parties or lobby groups.

Dob74

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Canvassing for a no vote? Joe Higgins's Socialist Party, Cóir, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, Patricia McKenna's disaffected Greens, Liber -- oops, sorry, forget the last one. You are spoiled for choice.

Going against the neo-liberals and the farmers in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
Count me in, as part of Joe's army.

It's a shame the Labour Party are supporting the yes side.
Eammon Gilmore said last summer the Lisbon Treaty is dead.
Guess he has a price like every other politian.

K-9

Dob74 wrote: »

Guess he has a price like every other politian.

Yep, even Joe has a price!

Dob74

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, even Joe has a price!

I think Labour have sold themselves too cheap and would be better off not campaigning for either side.
They should make a list of demands to the government, such as the abandonment of NAMA as conditions for campaigning for the yes side.
When the gov refuses to give in, say they will sit this one out. The majority of registered voters, voted against it last time so being on both sides of the argument would be much more beneifial to Labour.
If FF where in opposition they would be cute enough to be on both sides of the issue and sweep up votes from everyone.

P. Breathnach

Dob74 wrote: »

I think Labour have sold themselves too cheap and would be better off not campaigning for either side.
They should make a list of demands to the government, such as the abandonment of NAMA as conditions for campaigning for the yes side.
When the gov refuses to give in, say they will sit this one out. The majority of registered voters, voted against it last time so being on both sides of the argument would be much more beneifial to Labour.
If FF where in opposition they would be cute enough to be on both sides of the issue and sweep up votes from everyone.

That would be low political opportunism.

The Labour Party belief is that it is in our interests to sign up to Lisbon. It would be wrong to play games with that. Politics, no matter what some of its practitioners seem to believe, is not a game.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Woman actually. I've switched. Is that so questionable?

No not at all. But you were so vehement in bashing no voters as 'conspiracy nuts' and talking about Lisbon being good for bringing change and fighting the war on terror etc that I'm surprised at this change of heart is all.

MrMicra

you could try republicannetwork.ie a patriotic group that I think are wrong on this issue. but they have members who are normal and willing to canvass a rare combination.

Dob74

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That would be low political opportunism.

The Labour Party belief is that it is in our interests to sign up to Lisbon. It would be wrong to play games with that. Politics, no matter what some of its practitioners seem to believe, is not a game.

FF opposed the anglo-irish treaty purely for self interest. Look what happened to them. In government for 20 out of 22 years.
If Labour want to play with the big boys they will have to play to win.
Anyway the treaty is a neo-liberal treaty, not a pro labour treaty.
The right to work clause is a union buster", Why would labour want to piss off thier base.

Scofflaw

Dob74 wrote: »

FF opposed the anglo-irish treaty purely for self interest. Look what happened to them. In government for 20 out of 22 years.
If Labour want to play with the big boys they will have to play to win.
Anyway the treaty is a neo-liberal treaty, not a pro labour treaty.
The right to work clause is a union buster", Why would labour want to piss off thier base.

Whenever people ask questions like that, I always wonder if they consider turning the question round?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dob74

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whenever people ask questions like that, I always wonder if they consider turning the question round?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well its a sad situation when a suppoed left wing party agrees with the right wing parties.
Why have politial debate? Why not have a one party system?

BlitzKrieg

Well its a sad situation when a suppoed left wing party agrees with the right wing parties.

Doesnt this happen alot though on both sides of the issue?

Scofflaw

Dob74 wrote: »

Well its a sad situation when a suppoed left wing party agrees with the right wing parties.
Why have politial debate? Why not have a one party system?

Lisbon is a centrist treaty - like all the EU treaties, there's a balance between the rights of labour and the freedom of business. Labour, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are all within a reasonably small distance of centre, whether to the left or the right - they all accept that a balance between the freedom of business and the rights of labour is necessary to allow business to provide employment without exploitation. The left-of-centre parties would put the preferred balance point in somewhat different places than the right-of-centre parties, just as in general they strike the balance between the needs of society and the rights of the individual in somewhat different places.

As long as one accepts that there has to be a balance - which is pretty much the definition of centrist, and is a position supported by the majority of the electorate - then one can accept a centrist treaty like Lisbon, unless one feels that it strikes the balance too far the wrong way.

The people who can't accept a centrist treaty like Lisbon are usually either hard-right or hard-left - both of whom consider that no such balance need be struck, or who strike the balance well outside the limits of mainstream politics - or sovereigntists, who believe there should be no political authority outside the nation-state.

So, there's no difficulty in Labour supporting Lisbon, because Labour accept that there has to be a balance between the rights of labour and the freedom of business - and presumably they don't think the balance is wrong. You have to bear in mind that the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) support Lisbon, because they believe that on balance it's good for workers.

So it's worth considering, as I said, that you should turn the question around, and consider that perhaps Lisbon isn't a "neo-liberal treaty", and that the support it's being given by left-wing parties and trade unions isn't the result of some bizarre distortion of the universe (or conspiracy) but the result of you being wrong about Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

worldrepublic

That label "conspiracy" keeps popping up at will. If you're right and no-campaigners should wear "tin-foil hats", then maybe yes-campaigners like Fianna Fail should wear "brown envelope hats".

K-9

worldrepublic wrote: »

That label "conspiracy" keeps popping up at will. If you're right and no-campaigners should wear "tin-foil hats", then maybe yes-campaigners like Fianna Fail should wear "brown envelope hats".

Yep, probably as often by the No side! The Yes side tend to have thicker skins about it though!

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

That label "conspiracy" keeps popping up at will. If you're right and no-campaigners should wear "tin-foil hats", then maybe yes-campaigners like Fianna Fail should wear "brown envelope hats".

says the person who posted this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055659356

worldrepublic

If you actually read the thread, you were the one who said we were looking at a "world war" type scenario, not me!

K-9

Sure we ignore 1916 and the men who fought for our freedom!

worldrepublic

Come again?!

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

If you actually read the thread, you were the one who said we were looking at a "world war" type scenario, not me!

if you read the post again you will see i was being highly sarcastic about you yet again bringing up tinfoil hat conspiracies into politics

and not for the first time

lets nor forget which member here (ahem you @w) started ranting on about War on terror and war on drugs in a parallel Lisbon thread

K-9

worldrepublic wrote: »

Come again?!

It's NWO speak! Don't worry!

worldrepublic

Right guys... zero argument, just lots of labels!

MrMicra

Dob74 wrote: »

Well its a sad situation when a suppoed left wing party agrees with the right wing parties.
Why have politial debate? Why not have a one party system?

Hi Dob74, I am on the left but I support the Lisbon treaty. It is about the smooth running of the EU. The EU does help business but also helps workers.

The introduction of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law is something that I think will be good for ordinary citizens, I have some friends who worry that the EU courts are so pro business that they will interpret those rights to help businesses rather than people.

Vote in the way that you feel is right.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Right guys... zero argument, just lots of labels!

so when all else fails

yee try to wind up the other side and make the angry and appear stupid

i can see it now @K-9 we better leave him/her be

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

Right guys... zero argument, just lots of labels!

worldrepublic, you're really not making substantive contributions here. Out of a whole post on centrism, you pulled the one word 'conspiracy', and are trying to make an issue out of that instead of addressing any of the actual points. Since you have something of a history of dragging threads off-topic, consider this your final warning.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dob74

MrMicra wrote: »

Hi Dob74, I am on the left but I support the Lisbon treaty. It is about the smooth running of the EU. The EU does help business but also helps workers.

The introduction of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law is something that I think will be good for ordinary citizens, I have some friends who worry that the EU courts are so pro business that they will interpret those rights to help businesses rather than people.

Vote in the way that you feel is right.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is the main issue in my opinion.
More importantly how do the courts find in key cases. So far the court has used the CFR in interpet cases since 2001 and in doing so it has undermined workers pay and conditions.

Lisbon will bring the right to work into law. This is used to break unions in the red states in america. It is not law in the richer states in america only in the south and republician controlled states.
The European Courts will find in favour of big business everytime. The Judges have been appointed by right wing governments so there is no way that there will be justice for labour.

ninty9er

Dob74 wrote: »

Lisbon will bring the right to work into law. This is used to break unions in the red states in america.

The right to work and the right to employment are two wholly separate issues. I know this because the question has been raised before and was made specifically clear to us in Industrial Relations by one of Ireland's leading academics in the area.

Dob74

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon is a centrist treaty - like all the EU treaties, there's a balance between the rights of labour and the freedom of business. Labour, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are all within a reasonably small distance of centre, whether to the left or the right - they all accept that a balance between the freedom of business and the rights of labour is necessary to allow business to provide employment without exploitation. The left-of-centre parties would put the preferred balance point in somewhat different places than the right-of-centre parties, just as in general they strike the balance between the needs of society and the rights of the individual in somewhat different places.

As long as one accepts that there has to be a balance - which is pretty much the definition of centrist, and is a position supported by the majority of the electorate - then one can accept a centrist treaty like Lisbon, unless one feels that it strikes the balance too far the wrong way.

The people who can't accept a centrist treaty like Lisbon are usually either hard-right or hard-left - both of whom consider that no such balance need be struck, or who strike the balance well outside the limits of mainstream politics - or sovereigntists, who believe there should be no political authority outside the nation-state.

So, there's no difficulty in Labour supporting Lisbon, because Labour accept that there has to be a balance between the rights of labour and the freedom of business - and presumably they don't think the balance is wrong. You have to bear in mind that the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) support Lisbon, because they believe that on balance it's good for workers.

So it's worth considering, as I said, that you should turn the question around, and consider that perhaps Lisbon isn't a "neo-liberal treaty", and that the support it's being given by left-wing parties and trade unions isn't the result of some bizarre distortion of the universe (or conspiracy) but the result of you being wrong about Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The European Trade Union confederation are similiar to the unions here. Part of ruling class who look after themselves. David Begg has gotten some nice paying jobs from the government a few directorships to keep him onside.
Everyone has a price and the unions have the sold themselves to cheap.
The EU will not be able to bring in labour laws because the eastern europeans will block them. They have gone from communism to hard capitalism.
The Davis Bacon Act in the US prevents contract labour from moving from state to state, under cutting local trade agreements. The EU has no such laws and will never if Lisbon is passed.
Its sad that the EU is to the right of america when it comes to workers rights.
There are lots of things FF,FG and the PD's care about, workers rights is not one of them.

djpbarry

Dob74 wrote: »

The EU will not be able to bring in labour laws because the eastern europeans will block them.

Ah yes, the “Eastern Europeans”. From that politically homogenous area of “Eastern Europe” fifteen times the size of Ireland.

Dob74 wrote: »

They have gone from communism to hard capitalism.

Which would explain why Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia have socialist governments?

Dob74 wrote: »

The Davis Bacon Act in the US prevents contract labour from moving from state to state...

Does it? How so?

ixtlan

Dob74 wrote: »

Its sad that the EU is to the right of america when it comes to workers rights.

Do you really really believe that?!

ei.sdraob

ixtlan wrote: »

Do you really really believe that?!

I think he should go to US and work and see for himself before making hilarious statements

View

Dob74 wrote: »

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is the main issue in my opinion.
More importantly how do the courts find in key cases. So far the court has used the CFR in interpet cases since 2001 and in doing so it has undermined workers pay and conditions.

I am kind of intrigued by this claim. Can you provide us with a couple of examples of cases in which the ECJ used the CFR to undermine workers pay and conditions? With links please, so we can all read the relevant judgments - that way we can see the judges reasoning "Based on clause X of the CFR, we hereby decide..."

Dob74 wrote: »

The European Courts will find in favour of big business everytime. The Judges have been appointed by right wing governments so there is no way that there will be justice for labour.

How exactly do you define "right wing government"? It is hard to believe that we haven't had a fair few judges appointed by (mainstream) "left wing" governments over the years...

Dob74

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I think he should go to US and work and see for himself before making hilarious statements

Americans are good at protecting american workers, they definately dont give a damn about workers in other countries.
You obivously have not worked in the states because if there one thing they do well, is they pay there workers well.
Unless you worked as a mexician busboy or in Wall Mart.

Dob74

View wrote: »

I am kind of intrigued by this claim. Can you provide us with a couple of examples of cases in which the ECJ used the CFR to undermine workers pay and conditions? With links please, so we can all read the relevant judgments - that way we can see the judges reasoning "Based on clause X of the CFR, we hereby decide..."



How exactly do you define "right wing government"? It is hard to believe that we haven't had a fair few judges appointed by (mainstream) "left wing" governments over the years...

The Laval, Viking cases and lets not forget our friends in GAMA. Who have been so badly punished by our government, for paying slave wages that they where given a 500 million contract by a semi state company. That will teach them to break irish labour laws.
Dont worry I am sure some tribunal will get to the bottom of it by 2025.

BlitzKrieg

On laval etc

the Lavel ruling and a number of other such rulings have to do with weaknesses in the existing 1996 Posting of Workers directive, which now has to be revised. Those who are making these claims ignore the fact that the ETUC sees the Lisbon Treaty as very much part of the solution to the problems raised by some recent ECJ rulings, with the binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, the restated values and objectives, the binding social clause, and the provison enabling the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.

might explain why the labour party might be in favour of Lisbon...

simplistic

http://www.truthcoalitionireland.org Some more options.

Scofflaw

simplistic wrote: »

http://www.truthcoalitionireland.org Some more options.

Don't just pimp the website - tell people what it says. If you can't defend what it says, you're just advertising - and there's a charge for that.

moderately,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

it says the same 13 lies and half truths as numerous other websites give so why bother with it?

P. Breathnach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

it says the same 13 lies and half truths as numerous other websites give so why bother with it?

It says other interesting things, including what they are about:

Truth Coalition Ireland is an umbrella organisation linking together groups and individuals whose collective aim is to inform, coordinate and activate people to take intelligent action, legally and peacefully, to thwart the geopolitical agenda known as the New World Order currently being pursued by a tiny, corrupt, criminal elite against the interests of the ordinary, decent peoples of the world.

See: http://www.truthcoalitionireland.org/?page_id=2

papachango

Its an excercise in patience & indeed sadness watching the 'individuals' in the 'Yes' and 'No' Herds sweeping through the boards here, trading comments about the upcoming revote on the Lisbon treaty. For the record, I voted 'Yes' and I was disappointed that the treaty was not ratified. If I had a time machine and could go back to the original vote on the treaty I would vote yes again, purely out of selfish reasons, as I did originally. However I do not have such a device but something better. Hindsight.
Back to the present where there is a much larger and more fundamental issue here. One which supercedes and completely eclipses the confirmation of the decline/rebirth of this country into a truly banana republic. Sure we are proving we are a yellow skinned race who show all the backbone of a banana. This country is at the point of globally admitting to the world that it is bent out of all democratic shape by retaking a legal and valid vote by 'the people'.

I for one will be voting 'No' this time. For the following simple reasons

I believe in the sanctity of the ballot box, I believe the votes cast by the people of this fine country cannot be allowed to be haughtifully cast aside by those we entrusted our democracy to.

Its a real shame that the democratically elected leaders are trying to overturn a democratic and legal vote by you the people. I could not look at any of my friends or family, colleagues or indeed countrymen or women if this treaty is ratified this time around. For the simple reason that I know that each of them believe in having the right to vote. That referenda are important. I may as well spit in their faces as celebrate the reversal of a vote that was legally and more importantly democratically taken by the majority of voters in this country. I do not know who voted No last time around and as such I will not be randomly spitting in the faces of strangers as I walk down Grafton Street. For this is literally what is happening to the 'majority' of people in this country at the mere mention of taking a revote. People who may have believed that their vote was tallied and meant something that day. Never mind the actual effort that is going into informing people of 'the treaty' this time around. Same effort and same information as last time ie NONE, Its stomach turning.

I had to track down and read the treaty myself as there was no objective balanced assesment of the treaty by either side last time around. Do not get distracted with the arguments for and against this treaty, its not the issue here. It was already rejected. Legally and more importantly, Democratically.

If you are a man or woman who believes, who truly believes, in Ireland as a democratic country then you will do the right thing and get the message to our leaders that voting should still count for something, and must be accepted and acted upon by government as mandated by the people.

Is anybody else saddened by the execution of democracy in our fair country? Its condemnation to the gallows by those to whom its very survival was entrusted to is a bitter pill to swallow.

Make a stand for democracy, and the right of your children to have votes in their lifetimes, Vote no. The world will not stop spinning. I promise you that.

Scofflaw

I'm not sure why you're of the opinion that democracy involves no negotiation. Still, think of it like this. If nobody has changed their minds, then the vote should not be reheld. If people have changed their minds, then it's a different vote. We can't know except by holding the vote, though.

The very fact that you have changed your mind should suggest inexorably to you that it will be a different vote...which makes voting No because it's the same vote rather untenable.

To be honest, though, I think you may have mixed up democracy and virginity.

paradoxically,
Scofflaw

papachango

Thanks Scofflaw but you are indeed incorrect but you know this already. Referenda are taken so that people have a chance to make up their mind and cast a vote. The vote was taken, the nation had made up its mind.
I had my vote last time. It was defeated. I'm a grown man and have to accept it. Me changing my mind afterwards or my vote is nothing to do with it and you're a smart guy so you know this too.
This vote was already taken. if people change their mind afterwards thats too bad.
I suspect there will be a third vote on the Boomerang treaty and one day you may get the satisfaction of knowing that if its eventually passed you done your bit to make it happen. well done. Try and tell me that you believe in democracy and a revote. Because that IS paradoxical now isnt it.