"Lisbon is good for gays"

lgbt@labour.ie

Members of Labour LGBT will tomorrow morning launch their campaign to urge members of the LGBT communities in Ireland to vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty on October 2nd

Labour LGBT will launch their campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty by unveiling their campaign materials, on Wednesday 16th September at 11am. The leaflet will also be available on the Labour Party website

The launch will take place at the Oscar Wilde statue at Merrion Square, and the issues raised will include freedom of assembly and gender equality.

WHEN: WEDNESDAY, 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009, at 11AM

WHERE: OSCAR WILDE STATUE (MERRION SQUARE)

See facebook event

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=133914997567&ref=nf

For more details contact lgbt@labour.ie

For any questions on the Lisbon Treaty contact enquiries@votelabour.ie

L1011

What, exactly, in the treaty is "good for gays"? Details please - your post is entirely lacking in them.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

What, exactly, in the treaty is "good for gays"? Details please - your post is entirely lacking in them.

Not really anything but this group is connected to Labour and Labour want a yes vote.

AARRRGH

MYOB wrote: »

What, exactly, in the treaty is "good for gays"? Details please - your post is entirely lacking in them.

Yeah, it sounds like every other stupid poster out there:

Lisbon is good for jobs
Lisbon is good for the recession
Etc.

Unless you explain how, no one is going to take notice.

mikemac

First time I ever posted in this forum I reckon

More details needed.
How does the Lisbon Treaty help you? Sure it goes without saying that you read all of it.....
Or are you slavishly following the party line? Labour party HQ are voting yes so I must follow?

evercloserunion

Well Lisbon incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the rights of homosexuals. The COFR is very similar to the ECHR which Norris used to challenge Irish anti-homosexuality laws.

L1011

evercloserunion wrote: »

Well Lisbon incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the rights of homosexuals. The COFR is very similar to the ECHR which Norris used to challenge Irish anti-homosexuality laws.

It guarantees rights we already have, without being as far reaching as what our own government has given.

Stark

Afaik, gay rights are already covered by the Treaty of Amsterdam which requires all member states to repeal anti-homosexual laws and enact anti-discrimitory leglislation. I don't think Lisbon changes anything in this regard.

From what I can see, the only additional right that's guaranteed is the right of transsexuals to marry a person of opposite gender to their chosen gender. Though how you define chosen gender is debateable. In the UK, this is covered by the Gender Recognition Act. I don't think any such act exists in Ireland.

mobius42

lgbt@labour.ie wrote: »

Members of Labour LGBT will tomorrow morning launch their campaign to urge members of the LGBT communities in Ireland to vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty on October 2nd

Labour LGBT will launch their campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty by unveiling their campaign materials, on Wednesday 16th September at 11am. The leaflet will also be available on the Labour Party website

MYOB wrote: »

What, exactly, in the treaty is "good for gays"? Details please - your post is entirely lacking in them.

It seems that they're going to be publishing the details tomorrow. I'll be interested to see what points they come up with; I thought that Lisbon didn't really cover anything affecting gay rights. Still, it's nice to see an Irish political party actually paying attention to gay people for once.:rolleyes:

Stark

I would hope it's not a cynical vote getting exercise. I will be voting Yes anyway but I would not like to do so on the basis of empty promises. I just hope they're as eager to pay attention to the gays if they get into power and it comes to new civil marriage legislation.

L1011

Seeing as they actually went to the bother of writing and putting forward a civil marriage bill while in opposition, I'd suspect its high enough on their priorities. Whether they can get it in to the programme for government in whatever coalition they end up in next time out remains to be seen though.

evercloserunion

Stark wrote: »

I would hope it's not a cynical vote getting exercise. I will be voting Yes anyway but I would not like to do so on the basis of empty promises. I just hope they're as eager to pay attention to the gays if they get into power and it comes to new civil marriage legislation.

I don't know what arguments Labour LGBT will use to persuade homosexuals that the Lisbon Treaty is good for them but you should not be so quick to dismiss the COFR as an empty promise. We have, in our own constitution, a fundamental rights section which is there to protect us. Chances are you will never need to rely on this section, and many people can get through life just fine without ever having to consider it. That does not mean that it is an empty promise, or that it is not good for the Irish people. The fact is that the Lisbon Treaty elevates to supreme status a system of rights that is progressive and gay-friendly and that can only be a good thing.

Stark

What does the COFR provide that the Treaty of Amsterdam didn't?

L1011

evercloserunion wrote: »

I don't know what arguments Labour LGBT will use to persuade homosexuals that the Lisbon Treaty is good for them but you should not be so quick to dismiss the COFR as an empty promise. We have, in our own constitution, a fundamental rights section which is there to protect us. Chances are you will never need to rely on this section, and many people can get through life just fine without ever having to consider it. That does not mean that it is an empty promise, or that it is not good for the Irish people. The fact is that the Lisbon Treaty elevates to supreme status a system of rights that is progressive and gay-friendly and that can only be a good thing.

You're aware that the enforceability of the COFR is optional and not a requirement of ratification, right? A number of states have opted out already. Under Ahern, we investigated the possibility of doing so, if you believe an EU website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2007/07/articles/uk0707049i.htm

evercloserunion

MYOB wrote: »

You're aware that the enforceability of the COFR is optional and not a requirement of ratification, right? A number of states have opted out already. Under Ahern, we investigated the possibility of doing so, if you believe an EU website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2007/07/articles/uk0707049i.htm

Enforceability of the COFR is not "optional". The COFR post-Lisbon will have the same legal status of the treaties, so if its enforceability is optional then so is the enforceability of the Treaties which would be absurd.

Once Lisbon is ratified, the COFR gains legal force. A number of states, as you say, have secured opt-outs. Ireland hasn't. Investigating the possibility doesn't mean squat in legal terms.

Stark

evercloserunion wrote: »

Once Lisbon is ratified, the COFR gains legal force. A number of states, as you say, have secured opt-outs. Ireland hasn't. Investigating the possibility doesn't mean squat in legal terms.

What good is that to states other than Ireland then? Ireland already has implemented everything required by the COFR when it comes to gay rights. And you haven't answered what's new that's not provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty. I'm voting Yes for other reasons btw, but I want to be clear on what the LGBT benefits you're claiming.

L1011

evercloserunion wrote: »

Enforceability of the COFR is not "optional". The COFR post-Lisbon will have the same legal status of the treaties, so if its enforceability is optional then so is the enforceability of the Treaties which would be absurd.

Once Lisbon is ratified, the COFR gains legal force. A number of states, as you say, have secured opt-outs. Ireland hasn't. Investigating the possibility doesn't mean squat in legal terms.

Enforceability of it is certainly optional - countries have the ability to opt out, the very definition of optional. You are not required to have opted in (well, not opted out) to ratify the treaty - hence it is optional for the treaty.

I suspect we didn't bother opting out as it provides absolutely nothing not already provided in our legislative system as it stands.

evercloserunion

Stark wrote: »

What good is that to states other than Ireland then? Ireland already has implemented everything required by the COFR when it comes to gay rights. And you haven't answered what's new that's not provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty. I'm voting Yes for other reasons btw, but I want to be clear on what the LGBT benefits you're claiming.

I'm not claiming anything; I am mooting the COFR as the probably reason why Labour think Lisbon is good for gays.

As for your question about what the COFR gives us in the area of gay rights that Amsterdam does not, I will answer honestly; I don't know. I am not familiar with the Amsterdam gay provisions. But the COFR is a comprehensive charter of human rights justiciable by the ECJ and binding on EU law. You are missing the point by stating that Ireland has already implemented the requirements under the COFR. The implementation of the COFR under Lisbon concerns EU law rather than Irish law, and acts as a protection against future EU laws or actions which may impact negatively on the rights of its citizens, perhaps by displacing national law.

evercloserunion

MYOB wrote: »

Enforceability of it is certainly optional - countries have the ability to opt out, the very definition of optional. You are not required to have opted in (well, not opted out) to ratify the treaty - hence it is optional for the treaty.

I suspect we didn't bother opting out as it provides absolutely nothing not already provided in our legislative system as it stands.

What I mean is that once Lisbon is ratified, signatory states are not at liberty to decide in any given case whether the COFR is enforceable. Ireland have not negotiated an opt-out, so once Lisbon is ratified enforceability of the COFR will not be optional.

L1011

evercloserunion wrote: »

What I mean is that once Lisbon is ratified, signatory states are not at liberty to decide in any given case whether the COFR is enforceable. Ireland have not negotiated an opt-out, so once Lisbon is ratified enforceability of the COFR will not be optional.

Indeed, but irrelevant, as COFR doesn't affect us at all as we already have every single protection... I don't get your point at all, really.

Marshy

I guess one could argue that whats good for the country at large, ie. Lisbon, is good for it's people and so by extension gay people. But I'd assume thats not what they mean.

mobius42

Labour have posted their reasons for why the Lisbon Treaty supports gay rights:

- The Charter of Fundamental Rights will forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation throughout the EU. (Article 21.1)
- Article 23 of the Charter will forbid discrimination based on gender across the member states.
- The Charter guarantees, in Article 12, the right to assemble which will protect Gay Pride marches and organisations across Europe.
- The European Union will accede to the European convention of Human Rights further strengthening the protections for citizens and particularly LGBT citizens of the Union.
- In future the European Commission will be legally required as part of the Social Mainstreaming Clause to aim to combat discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, in all its policies.
- The participatory democracy clauses will legally require the Commission to consult with LGBT groups before coming forward with any proposals of interest or concern to them.

You can read the rest here.

Euro_Kraut

mobius42 wrote: »

Labour have posted their reasons for why the Lisbon Treaty supports gay rights:



You can read the rest here.

Looking at that I guess the argument is that is a positive for LGBT people across Europe (not simply for Irish LGBT people).

The issues surrounding discrimination and marches are far more pertinent in Eastern and Central European States that they are here.

shay_562

The Charter of Fundamental Rights will forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation throughout the EU. (Article 21.1)

Would be interested to know how this affects the ability of Catholic primary schools to fire LGBT teachers in the interests of protecting their Catholic ethos. Anyone got any ideas?

mobius42

shay_562 wrote: »

Would be interested to know how this affects the ability of Catholic primary schools to fire LGBT teachers in the interests of protecting their Catholic ethos. Anyone got any ideas?

Has an Irish School ever fired anyone for being gay? It seems ridiculous that they would be allowed to do that.

L1011

mobius42 wrote: »

Has an Irish School ever fired anyone for being gay? It seems ridiculous that they would be allowed to do that.

Whether they have or haven't, they are specifically allowed to by an exclusion in the employment equality act.

The_Minister

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/019-60714-257-09-38-902-20090915IPR60711-14-09-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

MEPs criticising the new Lithuanian legislation.

shoegirl

mobius42 wrote: »

Has an Irish School ever fired anyone for being gay? It seems ridiculous that they would be allowed to do that.

The legislation is more insidious than it seems. The reason it is there is to act as a deterent for gays and other social undesireables from working as teachers per se. In practice no school would dare risk the negative fallout that would result from canning a teacher on the grounds of lifestyle - as they discovered through negative coverage from the Eileen Flynn case in the 1980s, as it could result in a change to legislation.

What gay teacher groups (yes, they do exist) are trying to do, is come out, be open, and challenge this from the inside out.

Tricity Bendix

They got a write up in the Irish Times today, which is pretty good going. Although, Liberal Society also got a piece, so I think the Times are just willing to publish anyone with a pro-Treaty viewpoint.

Anyway, Coir seem to think that the European Court of Justice could force Ireland to accept same-sex marriages.

The_Minister

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

They got a write up in the Irish Times today, which is pretty good going. Although, Liberal Society also got a piece, so I think the Times are just willing to publish anyone with a pro-Treaty viewpoint.

/Points at signature
Hey!

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Anyway, Coir seem to think that the European Court of Justice could force Ireland to accept same-sex marriages.

Nope. As said above, it may help overturn the Lithuanian legislation (which is crazy) and help in other states, but even as a Yes campaigner I can't say it will get you gay marriage or anything. It just won't.

evercloserunion

MYOB wrote: »

Indeed, but irrelevant, as COFR doesn't affect us at all as we already have every single protection... I don't get your point at all, really.

Well as I said I didn't really have a point at the time, but it seems Labour LGBT have since made their point quite clear: there are gays outside Ireland.

Tricity Bendix

The_Minister wrote: »

/Points at signature
Hey!

I could have said a lot worse regarding Liberal Society. I'm just glad I voted to end the PDs, as the thought of having the PD logo next to 'Yes in the City' sickens me. Its a meaningless contribution from an organisation set up to keep the PD/YPD gravy train from Europe on track.

Nope. As said above, it may help overturn the Lithuanian legislation (which is crazy) and help in other states, but even as a Yes campaigner I can't say it will get you gay marriage or anything. It just won't.

And here is my real problem as neutral. No side says one thing, the yes say its not true. I have no way of knowing which is true, as both sides are equally likely to lie. If it is the case that the Treaty is so legally incomprehensible so that it can be interpreted to mean two completely opposite things, I think it best to vote No. If one side can be proven to have lied, the Electoral Commission should be able to fine them.

shay_562

shay_562 wrote: »

Would be interested to know how this affects the ability of Catholic primary schools to fire LGBT teachers in the interests of protecting their Catholic ethos. Anyone got any ideas?

E-mailed this same question to the "enquiries" address given by the OP on Wednesday night. Still no word back. Methinks that might well be because the answer is "Actually, it doesn't. In fact, the impact on Irish LGBT people is negligible". It's bad enough that both sides in this treaty are building their arguments around lies and scare-mongering without this kind of a pathetic attempt at pandering. My swing vote just swung a little closer to "No".

The_Minister

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I could have said a lot worse regarding Liberal Society. I'm just glad I voted to end the PDs, as the thought of having the PD logo next to 'Yes in the City' sickens me. Its a meaningless contribution from an organisation set up to keep the PD/YPD gravy train from Europe on track.

The majority of the members of the Liberal Society were never in the PD/YPDs.
The Liberal Society are not associated with the YPDs/PDs.

As for the poster, its lighthearted, and an attempt to make the treaty a bit more fun - most people think the Lisbon debate is the most boring issue in Irish politics, and they are right. There is no harm in trying to relax things a little. We will be canvassing and handing out leaflets, and most of our canvassers will have a very good knowledge of the treaty (far better than the teams of most parties) who will be ready to answer questions.

What gravy train? Members of the YPDs who visited with groups in other countries had to pay their own expenses.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

And here is my real problem as neutral. No side says one thing, the yes say its not true. I have no way of knowing which is true, as both sides are equally likely to lie. If it is the case that the Treaty is so legally incomprehensible so that it can be interpreted to mean two completely opposite things, I think it best to vote No. If one side can be proven to have lied, the Electoral Commission should be able to fine them.

Both sides saying something different does not mean that both are lying.

However, if one side is lying, then it is the No side.
Conscription - lie.
Minimum wage - lie.
abortion - lie
euthanasia - lie.

I can't think of any Yes side lies.
I can think of simplifications (Yes for jobs, when it should be Yes for a likely increase in employment over time, through our economic recovery which shall be aided by Europe), but no outright lies.

Eire go brath (that kinda facist group, with the druid as its leader) recently said that Article 6 of the convention would allow the state to throw people with alchzeimers (sp?) in prison. Utter lies.

Those interpretations aren't valid, they are bull****, but they are just being put out to muddy the water so that people vote No out of uncertainty.


On topic though, it should be noted that the help to LGBT people in Eastern Europe will be very tangible. If you care about people in other countries, then gay rights are a good reason to vote Yes.
There will be some benefits to Irish LGBT people from the Lisbon treaty, there is no point denying it, but I don't think it brings in gay marraige (another scare tactic by the No side) or does much more than shore up whats there.

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

I can't think of any Yes side lies.

"If we vote no we're out of Europe", "If we vote no the ECB will pull all funding overnight"

Admittedly the Yes side have done a very good job of not actually addressing any issues at all, with such useless campaign messages as "I'm safer in Europe" (which you'll still be in if you vote No).

Tricity Bendix

The_Minister wrote: »

The majority of the members of the Liberal Society were never in the PD/YPDs.
The Liberal Society are not associated with the YPDs/PDs.

Eh, the Pds no longer exist so it would be hard for anyone to be associated with them. However, Liberal Society was set up by the remaining rump of YPDs.

As for the poster, its lighthearted, and an attempt to make the treaty a bit more fun - most people think the Lisbon debate is the most boring issue in Irish politics, and they are right. There is no harm in trying to relax things a little. We will be canvassing and handing out leaflets, and most of our canvassers will have a very good knowledge of the treaty (far better than the teams of most parties) who will be ready to answer questions.

They are a meaningless contribution, they have no fundamental message, no core idea. As for harm, they add to the clutter, making it harder for people who actually have a message to get that message out.

What gravy train? Members of the YPDs who visited with groups in other countries had to pay their own expenses.

Maybe gravy train was inaccurate. Subsidised holiday would be a better fit. And as a former YPD treasurer and someone who went on a few of these excursions, I know what I'm talking about.

However, you seem to know far more about the Lisbon Treaty and what effect it might have on gay rights than I do, so maybe you could go a bit further and explain what exactly will change?

On topic though, it should be noted that the help to LGBT people in Eastern Europe will be very tangible.

What help?

There will be some benefits to Irish LGBT people from the Lisbon treaty

What benefits?

there is no point denying it

Why would you want to deny it, on here of all forums?

shay_562

The Minister wrote:

On topic though, it should be noted that the help to LGBT people in Eastern Europe will be very tangible. If you care about people in other countries, then gay rights are a good reason to vote Yes.

Couple of things. First of all, I find it vaguely insulting for reasons I can't quite put my finger on to have a major political party attempting to get LGBT people to vote in an Irish referendum because of LGBT rights in other countries - there's something patronising and marginalising about the idea of an international 'gay community', where we all stick together because we all like ****ing people of the same sex. I care about what happens to gay people in Eastern Europe, but no more so really than I care about any human rights abuse taking place in some foreign country. Second of all, I'm not clear on how Lisbon will actually do all that much in a concrete way to help gay Eastern Europeans - likely because I'm not that familiar with what the situation is now in various accession states. Taking, for example, the benefit wrt pride parades - an EU treaty affirming that people have a right to have their parade won't stop that parade from being subject to violence. It's a start, sure, but I don't think it's that big a step, and certainly not a hugely solid reason to vote "Yes".

Thirdly, and this is the crucial one, it worries me that we're being told on the one hand that Lisbon is a nuts-and-bolts, tidying-up treaty with little or no real-world implications beyond making the EU run more efficiently (which was pretty much the entire Yes case last time, and is a good chunk of it this time - a "don't worry about it, it changes nothing, just vote yes and get back to normal" approach), and that Lisbon does absolutely nothing to affect the sovereignty of European states, and yet simultaneously being told that Lisbon will enshrine gay rights in countries where they don't exist now. While I believe that this particular infringement on a nation's sovereignty is a good thing, it still makes me uncomortable to see it happening, especially when I may not like the next random infringement, and makes me even more uncomfortable to see the Yes side offering utterly contradictory messages of "Lisbon doesn't give the EU any additional powers or in any way endanger the decision-making abilities of our government or people...but here's some good things that will occur when the EU has additional powers to overrule governments and people"

The_Minister

MYOB wrote: »

"If we vote no we're out of Europe", "If we vote no the ECB will pull all funding overnight"

It's not "we're out of Europe" it's Europe may continue to integrate without us (a real possibility), or the much rarer, "Europe will integrate and we will be forced to leave the Union" which I have heard a sum total of one person say, and they were full of ****e.
We won't, in any likely scenario be forced to leave the union (although I suppose it is theoretically possible), but we could end up not being as much a part of the EU as other countries, if they integrated without us.
On the ECB thing, in terms of getting loans there may be some long term consequences, but your right in that the ECB won't directly pull our credit in retaliation. However, it can reasonably be argued that the only thing stopping Ireland being worse than Iceland, is our EU membership and the credibility it gives us. Any move that would be seen as Ireland diverging from Europe could dry up our international credit lines and stymie us.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Eh, the Pds no longer exist so it would be hard for anyone to be associated with them. However, Liberal Society was set up by the remaining rump of YPDs.

Actually as far as I am aware, none of the people who founded the Liberal Society were in the Progressive Democrats.
Several former YPDs have joined, but out of the over 150 members, 6 are former PDs by my count.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

They are a meaningless contribution, they have no fundamental message, no core idea. As for harm, they add to the clutter, making it harder for people who actually have a message to get that message out.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Maybe gravy train was inaccurate. Subsidised holiday would be a better fit. And as a former YPD treasurer and someone who went on a few of these excursions, I know what I'm talking about.

I was also in the YPDs and in my time there no-one ever got a free ride to another country, everyone payed their own way.
I have no idea if a different standard prevailed prior to my participation.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

However, you seem to know far more about the Lisbon Treaty and what effect it might have on gay rights than I do, so maybe you could go a bit further and explain what exactly will change?

I never claimed to be an expert, but I know a good bit about the treaty and have a good idea of the law.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

What help?

Have a look at the Lithuanian legislation I linked to (there are more detailed articles available through Google if you require). IMO that would most likely be struck down if the Lisbon Treaty is brought in.
The situation for LGBT people in parts of Eastern Europe is nowhere near as favorable as here, and the introduction of the Charter will help.
You have to remember that Europe basically had to force alot of these countries to make changes jst to actually get into the EU.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

What benefits?

As I said - not much.
Just copperfastening some rights, maybe expanding the scope of non-discrimination legislation etc. nothing radical

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Why would you want to deny it, on here of all forums?

Phrased that badly.
I'm trying to point out that it does help the LGBT community, but not to the extent that they should be overjoyed at its passing.
The average LGBT person in Ireland won't notice it, unless it comes to a civil partnership v. straight marriage situation where we have brought in partnership but are denying welfare or something.(entirely speculative).

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

It's not "we're out of Europe" it's Europe may continue to integrate without us (a real possibility), or the much rarer, "Europe will integrate and we will be forced to leave the Union" which I have heard a sum total of one person say, and they were full of ****e.
We won't, in any likely scenario be forced to leave the union (although I suppose it is theoretically possible), but we could end up not being as much a part of the EU as other countries, if they integrated without us.

Europe can only integrate further without a treaty by legislative means, which they can't exclude us from should we want in.

The_Minister wrote: »

On the ECB thing, in terms of getting loans there may be some long term consequences, but your right in that the ECB won't directly pull our credit in retaliation. However, it can reasonably be argued that the only thing stopping Ireland being worse than Iceland, is our EU membership and the credibility it gives us. Any move that would be seen as Ireland diverging from Europe could dry up our international credit lines and stymie us.

Membership of the single currency rather than membership of the EU is the difference with Iceland, and a No to Lisbon doesn't have us diverging from that.

Het-Field

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I could have said a lot worse regarding Liberal Society. I'm just glad I voted to end the PDs, as the thought of having the PD logo next to 'Yes in the City' sickens me. Its a meaningless contribution from an organisation set up to keep the PD/YPD gravy train from Europe on track.



And here is my real problem as neutral. No side says one thing, the yes say its not true. I have no way of knowing which is true, as both sides are equally likely to lie. If it is the case that the Treaty is so legally incomprehensible so that it can be interpreted to mean two completely opposite things, I think it best to vote No. If one side can be proven to have lied, the Electoral Commission should be able to fine them.

You are not the first one to voice disapproval at the posters. However, they were used as part of a market research exercise, and groups of women overwhelmingly voiced their approval at the posters. Like most posters, they contain little or no information on the treaty. That is due to the fact that aside from the Charter of Fundamental rights, there is little or nothing which can be proffered as an answer to the staple question of the Irish people, i.e "what does the Treaty do for me ?" You can put trite lines such as "Yes For Jobs", "Ireland Needs Europe". You may also use the polar opposite to seek a no vote. However, these posters have been utilised in Dublin City, hence the "Yes In The City" slogan. It may seem low brow, and I dont disagree with you. However, it does as much as any other poster in terms of information content.

The Society has also printed up leaflets, which shalll be distributed in the coming days. If you wish to see a copy, ill do my best to scan one, and place it on the website. It contains the same sort of information as any other leaflet, while the front cover recived the endorsement of many, including Pat Cox. It is inoffensive, and slightly tongue in cheek.

Finally, your rhetoric about the foreign junkets couldnt be wider off the mark if you tried. In my years of junketing with the YPDs, the party never gave me a penny, and due to time constraints I often arrived at events late, which rendered me ineligible for ANY refund. That included expensive trips to Ukraine, and the US, which all came out of my own pocket. Should I travel to represent the society, the same scenario will arise. We dont have sufficient funds to keep the "gravy train" rolling.

While there are a few YPDs aiding and abetting this venture, the society is not a YPD rump, and was established in Potsdam in July 2008. A few YPDs were approached by the society's founder, and we chose to merge the venture with a mandate to establish a liberal youth movement, which was delivered to the remaining members of the YPD National Officer Board in October 2008. When approached by the society, with a fully designed logo, and a registered website, it was far too good an opportunity to turn down. I suggest you look at groups like the Freedom Institute, who operated off a blogspot website, and never amounted to more then a bunch of neo-con keyboard warriors, which fizzled out in 2006. If we had ignored the offer, we would be considered crazy.

Within months the society has been able to launch a full campaign, poster in all Dublin constituencies, and we are prepared to hand out many leaflets in the coming weeks. Equally, we have managed to get national media coverage in the Irish Times, the Daily Mail, and in various other local fora. To claim that this is anything other then a success for a society in it's infancy, would be a gross misrepresentation, or a display of jealousy on your part. The society now has a base with which it can fight other campaigns, and act as a reputable organisation when seeking funding and members. Im hopeful that this will prove to be the springboard.

While I agree that the poster is low brow, it doesnt sour the sense of achievement. I dont think it would be right to dismiss the amount of effort which a group of independent liberals managed to put into this venture.

Tricity Bendix

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but I'll just say that when it comes to Lymec-subsidised junkets I know what I'm talking about, the poster is terrible (Coir - who are winning the poster war by a long way - dint use focus groups or market research; they just came up with good ideas and went with them), and fair play to ye for getting actively involved and all that.

The Minister wrote:

Have a look at the Lithuanian legislation I linked to (there are more detailed articles available through Google if you require). IMO that would most likely be struck down if the Lisbon Treaty is brought in.
The situation for LGBT people in parts of Eastern Europe is nowhere near as favorable as here, and the introduction of the Charter will help.
You have to remember that Europe basically had to force alot of these countries to make changes jst to actually get into the EU.

Hmmm. Im not sure I'm convinced. Norris was able to battle discrimination without the Lisbon Treaty. What does this Treaty give gays that they didn't have already?

Het-Field

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but I'll just say that when it comes to Lymec-subsidised junkets I know what I'm talking about, the poster is terrible (Coir - who are winning the poster war by a long way - dint use focus groups or market research; they just came up with good ideas and went with them), and fair play to ye for getting actively involved and all that.



Hmmm. Im not sure I'm convinced. Norris was able to battle discrimination without the Lisbon Treaty. What does this Treaty give gays that they didn't have already?

Thank you TB,

I will admit that there has been some negativity to the poster, but in the main, it has been very well recieved. The only media negativity has come from the Daily Mail, and tbh, I couldnt care less what they have to say.

While Coir's posters are effective, it doesnt mean that they are contributing to the debate in a meaningful way.. The Liberals could have sought to misrepresent the Treaty, and use that as a slogan for a poster. However, in reality a reform document, which seeks to integrate, and upgrade the EU's competence is not an easy sell. This is due to the high level of legal jargon, and convoluted reformation of the institutions, and power structures. It is always easy to put a snappy slogan like "They Died For Your Freedom", and seek to capitalise on the emotive language of extreme nationalism. In parts of South Dublin it wont fly, but in a variety of other constituencies, it will. It misrepresents the truth that our integration with the EU was through the ballot box, and there was not one iota of coercion. Political realities come into play, and by the time we joined the EU, those men that they used on the posters would more than likely have agreed. Remember, Dev's "dancin at the crossroads" vision was clearly untenable.

Either way, those who seek to proffer a yes vote are not afforded the same scope. Furthermore, the Yes camp cannot pick out one or two parts of the treaty, and base a campaign on them.

shay_562

Het-Field wrote:

Like most posters, they contain little or no information on the treaty. That is due to the fact that aside from the Charter of Fundamental rights, there is little or nothing which can be proffered as an answer to the staple question of the Irish people, i.e "what does the Treaty do for me ?" You can put trite lines such as "Yes For Jobs", "Ireland Needs Europe". You may also use the polar opposite to seek a no vote. However, these posters have been utilised in Dublin City, hence the "Yes In The City" slogan. It may seem low brow, and I dont disagree with you. However, it does as much as any other poster in terms of information content.

Actually, it doesn't. "Yes for Jobs" may be simplistic and dishonest, but it's an attempt to offer a solid positive reason to vote for the Treaty. "€1.84 Minimum Wage?" may be a lie, but it gives a reason (albeit a made up one) to vote against the Treaty. "Yes in the City" doesn't even try to tie into the half-assed debate that's going on, instead focusing on a cheap pop culture reference and using that to try and swing voters. A focus group may have liked it, but that doesn't mean it's not politically, intellectually vapid trash. It's actually worse than the "We Belong" posters, because at least they're making some suggestions about the actual ramifications of voting (even if that ramification is a hysterical "We'll be kicked out if we vote No!" one). The Liberal Society's posters (I understand you're also responsible for the "Give Yourself a Treat-y" one) fail to pass even that basic test.

As for the idea that there aren't positive things to build Yes posters around, bunk. Keeping a commissioner was, if you believe the opinion polls conducted after the last treaty, a major stumbling block, and the change to ensure we can keep our commissioner under Lisbon (but will lose him if Lisbon falls) is one of the major reasons used to justify the re-run. Why is no one running a "Yes to keep our own commissioner" poster? What about "Yes to a more democratic Europe"? (The shoring up of the democratic deficit by re-distributing power among the EU's decision-making bodies is a major part of the treaty) What about "Yes to Integration"? Or "Yes to Human Rights"? Simplistic, yes, but at least all of those things are stuff that's directly dealt with in the Treaty, rather than the questionable "Yes for Jobs" campaigns or the completely unrelated trash that the Liberals are putting up?

And in an effort not to take this totally off-topic, perhaps you'd care to weigh in on the main question of this thread - is Lisbon good specifically for gay people? And if it is, is it good for gay people at the expense of national-level legislating?

Het-Field

shay_562 wrote: »

Actually, it doesn't. "Yes for Jobs" may be simplistic and dishonest, but it's an attempt to offer a solid positive reason to vote for the Treaty. "€1.84 Minimum Wage?" may be a lie, but it gives a reason (albeit a made up one) to vote against the Treaty. "Yes in the City" doesn't even try to tie into the half-assed debate that's going on, instead focusing on a cheap pop culture reference and using that to try and swing voters. A focus group may have liked it, but that doesn't mean it's not politically, intellectually vapid trash. It's actually worse than the "We Belong" posters, because at least they're making some suggestions about the actual ramifications of voting (even if that ramification is a hysterical "We'll be kicked out if we vote No!" one). The Liberal Society's posters (I understand you're also responsible for the "Give Yourself a Treat-y" one) fail to pass even that basic test.

As for the idea that there aren't positive things to build Yes posters around, bunk. Keeping a commissioner was, if you believe the opinion polls conducted after the last treaty, a major stumbling block, and the change to ensure we can keep our commissioner under Lisbon (but will lose him if Lisbon falls) is one of the major reasons used to justify the re-run. Why is no one running a "Yes to keep our own commissioner" poster? What about "Yes to a more democratic Europe"? (The shoring up of the democratic deficit by re-distributing power among the EU's decision-making bodies is a major part of the treaty) What about "Yes to Integration"? Or "Yes to Human Rights"? Simplistic, yes, but at least all of those things are stuff that's directly dealt with in the Treaty, rather than the questionable "Yes for Jobs" campaigns or the completely unrelated trash that the Liberals are putting up?

And in an effort not to take this totally off-topic, perhaps you'd care to weigh in on the main question of this thread - is Lisbon good specifically for gay people? And if it is, is it good for gay people at the expense of national-level legislating?

You are completely missing the point. If you feel that the posters are about talking down to the electorate, and seeking to utilise pop culture to get votes, then you are living in cloud cookoo land. Our leaflets go a long way to engaging in the debate in a meaningful way. Im sure you will be able to get your hands on one. For the first time, a leaflet actually explains the crux of the amendment, and doesnt seek to offer a chronicle of what the EU has done for us since Schuman and Monet. Posters themselves needent be serious. However, on that point, the Society has just released a Third poster, which explicitly reference jobs. Thus our campaign is not "trash" as you clearly believe it to be. Who is to say that it must be directly linked to the treaty to have any value ? What about the Eamon Gilmore posters which boast no statement ? What about all the posters (in 2008) of local election candidates, whic bore no more than a small "yes to lisbon" sticker. They were disgusting self promotional exercises, which had more to do with a personal achievement. If anything a less than serious approach on some editions of our posters is far less indictible.

If you knew the treaty well enough, you would know that retention of a commissioner is a given. It is not the case that if we vote no the commissioner would be lost. It would simply maintain the position under Nice, which operated a bloated and oversized commission. Now, thanks to the guarantee, this position has been set in stone. We were never going to lose a commissioner, as you imply, it was simply going to be rotated, as would all others. Thus, that statement would be another lie. "Yes To Integration" "Yes To Human Rights", our leaflets deal at length with that. Why should our posters be confined to such statement ?

On the issue of Labour LGBT's calls, I really couldnt give a ****. Labour is a party whose members are precious, is an avid proponant of affirmative action. This articulated by the existence of Labour LGBT and Labour Women. No other party engaged in this, and in 1985 the PDs explicitly ruled out the possibility of having a women's group. Furthermore, the operate quotas in selection convention, and are open in their support of Dail gender quotas. I really couldnt give a toss what their fringe caucauses say.

shay_562

Het-Field wrote:

Who is to say that it must be directly linked to the treaty to have any value ?

...Read that sentence back to yourself a couple of times, and see if you head-desk the way I just did. "Who is to say that [a poster in the Lisbon Treaty referendum] must be directly linked to [the Lisbon Treaty] to have any value?" Deadly buzz so. Posters of happy kittens for the yes side, and random pictures of war zones for the no side. Who cares about even attempting to engage the electorate on the issues when you can have general positive/negative imagery and hope for the best.

Het-Field wrote:

However, on that point, the Society has just released a Third poster, which explicitly reference jobs. Thus our campaign is not "trash" as you clearly believe it to be.

So only two-thirds of your campaign is a pointless waste of cardboard? Congratulations! Begin the slow clap!

Het-Field wrote:

What about the Eamon Gilmore posters which boast no statement ? What about all the posters (in 2008) of local election candidates, whic bore no more than a small "yes to lisbon" sticker. They were disgusting self promotional exercises, which had more to do with a personal achievement. If anything a less than serious approach on some editions of our posters is far less indictible.

You're right, the posters during the last campaign seeking only to maximise local candidates' visibility before the elections were despicable. I haven't seen that Eamon Gilmore one this time around, but if as you say it's completely devoid of text beyond "Vote Yes" then yes, it is as bad as yours. But I think to claim that your posters are less bad because they make crap puns is a bit of a stretch. Trash is trash is trash.

Het-Field wrote:

If you knew the treaty well enough, you would know that retention of a commissioner is a given. It is not the case that if we vote no the commissioner would be lost. It would simply maintain the position under Nice, which operated a bloated and oversized commission.

Both the European Movement Ireland and Generation Yes have led me to believe otherwise. But I'm sure you "couldnt [sic] give a ****" about them either. That's cool - I'm sure the Liberals have just as much credibility as the European Movement Ireland, which has been around for over 50 years. I'm sure the 50 minutes you've spent being active in Irish politics counts for just as much.

Het-Field wrote:

"Yes To Integration" "Yes To Human Rights", our leaflets deal at length with that. Why should our posters be confined to such statement ?

They shouldn't. If you find statements or facts or general ideas that are more suitable for poster format, then go for it. If you consider those to be minor benefits of the treaty, fine, have your posters focus on something else in the treaty. But to have your posters not focus on any part of the treaty at all, and advocate Yes by spouting pop culture references, then yes, you're insulting and belittling the Irish electorate and lowering the tone of the general debate, something I wouldn't have thought possible until you came along. That slow clap is still going, right?

Het-Field wrote:

Labour is a party whose members are precious, is an avid proponant of affirmative action. This articulated by the existence of Labour LGBT and Labour Women. No other party engaged in this, and in 1985 the PDs explicitly ruled out the possibility of having a women's group. Furthermore, the operate quotas in selection convention, and are open in their support of Dail gender quotas.

...you say all of this as if it's a cardinal sin to be in favour of affirmative action or to have groups within your party that deal with certain issues. I'm not a Labour supporter by any means, but I'd point out that in the most recent opinion polls they've become the second most popular party while the PDs...well, they're not doing so well. Sucks to be you guys, I guess.

Het-Field wrote:

On the issue of Labour LGBT's calls, I really couldnt give a ****.

Then, with absolutely no respect, what in the living **** are you doing on the LGBT forum in a thread about how Lisbon affects LGBT people? Take your sad, proselytizing YPD ass back to politics.ie where it belongs.

Het-Field

shay_562 wrote: »

...Read that sentence back to yourself a couple of times, and see if you head-desk the way I just did. "Who is to say that [a poster in the Lisbon Treaty referendum] must be directly linked to [the Lisbon Treaty] to have any value?" Deadly buzz so. Posters of happy kittens for the yes side, and random pictures of war zones for the no side. Who cares about even attempting to engage the electorate on the issues when you can have general positive/negative imagery and hope for the best.



So only two-thirds of your campaign is a pointless waste of cardboard? Congratulations! Begin the slow clap!



You're right, the posters during the last campaign seeking only to maximise local candidates' visibility before the elections were despicable. I haven't seen that Eamon Gilmore one this time around, but if as you say it's completely devoid of text beyond "Vote Yes" then yes, it is as bad as yours. But I think to claim that your posters are less bad because they make crap puns is a bit of a stretch. Trash is trash is trash.



Both the European Movement Ireland and Generation Yes have led me to believe otherwise. But I'm sure you "couldnt [sic] give a ****" about them either. That's cool - I'm sure the Liberals have just as much credibility as the European Movement Ireland, which has been around for over 50 years. I'm sure the 50 minutes you've spent being active in Irish politics counts for just as much.



They shouldn't. If you find statements or facts or general ideas that are more suitable for poster format, then go for it. If you consider those to be minor benefits of the treaty, fine, have your posters focus on something else in the treaty. But to have your posters not focus on any part of the treaty at all, and advocate Yes by spouting pop culture references, then yes, you're insulting and belittling the Irish electorate and lowering the tone of the general debate, something I wouldn't have thought possible until you came along. That slow clap is still going, right?



...you say all of this as if it's a cardinal sin to be in favour of affirmative action or to have groups within your party that deal with certain issues. I'm not a Labour supporter by any means, but I'd point out that in the most recent opinion polls they've become the second most popular party while the PDs...well, they're not doing so well. Sucks to be you guys, I guess.



Then, with absolutely no respect, what in the living **** are you doing on the LGBT forum in a thread about how Lisbon affects LGBT people? Take your sad, proselytizing YPD ass back to politics.ie where it belongs.

I realise that my statement was badly worded. However, I dont believe that all posters require direct reference to the text of the treaty. Whats wrong with a bit of a tongue in cheek attitude ? The Society is not seeking to talk down to the electorate, it is taking a lighthearted attitude. The society has many young members, why should it be constrained by old attitudes to campaigning ? If you see it as trash, then fine. It's not as though the society is taking that attitude to the entire campaign, nor are we fooling ourselves that this is intended to be high-brow. How much action have you engaged in for this treaty ?I can guarantee its a damn sight less then me. Furthermore, without a notion of what our entire campiagn entails, you are in no position to judge the mertis of the campaign in general. If you seek to judge soley on the basis of the poster, then you are no better then the folks who vote for "the best looking candidate", or the "least threatening candidate". The poster itslef is low brow, I dont purport to deny that, but you clearly feel that it would be better to misrepresent the treaty, present dummy arguments, and use glib notions about the economy, and Irish society. Shows that your level of political activity is rooted in the Hist, as the level of you debates tend to involve spurious nonsense, and speakers who are their to fill the order paper

Im firmly against affirmative action, and internal caucauses as they reaffirm prejudices that women, and homosexuals need to utilise their own issues to get ahead in politics, and public life. Colm O Gorman (Head of Amnesty International Ireland), David Norris, Mary Robinson, Mary Harney, Maggie Thatcher, Angle Merkel all prove otherwise. Equally, Barack Obama has proven that racial lines can be crossed, and his rhetoric distinguished him from all the others throughout 2008. If one works hard enough, they will reap the rewards in political life. Why should Lisbon be sold as "Good for the LGBT Community", or "Good For Women" ? Does it need to be pointed out that Lisbon is not only good for the straight, white, young male, but everybody ?

Im entitled to my opinion on the concept of a "Lisbon is Good For the LGBT Community" platform. Much like the "Women for Europe Campaign", and the "Women say no Campaign", I see it as a pointless, and exclusive exercise, which is based on natural characteristics, which have nothing to do with achievement or merit. God made people as they are, and that should have nothing to do with a vote for the Treaty. Naturally, if the LGBT community see an increment to their rights through the COFR, then they may see that a yes vote is merited. However, it is pointless to lauch a campaign based on it.

"50 Minuites active in Irish Politics". Try Four years and 8 months in various political capacities. I have actually been working on Lisbon Campaigns (at the colface of campaign organisation with the PDs and the Liberals). I engaged in more street action then you can shake a ****ty stick at. I have heard the prejudices, the opinions, and the mis-apprehensions. Iv done my best to rebut them, and in other cases the person I dealt with had no interest in hearing an alternative point of view. I suppose you will play you part with your seven mins sppech to the Hist. However, the pretentious attitudes, and opinions of your ilk rile people, and will serve no great purpose in the shake up

Finally, im entitled to enter any fourm I like, and proffer my views on any campaign I wish. I wont be told by a keyboard warrior like you where I can go. The PDs are dead, so you childish ad-hominem attacks are useless. Equally, the PDs did far more for Women's rights the Labour ever did. Which Party consistently had at least 30 % of its parlimentary party of the female sex ? Which party almost predicated it's election campaign on an openly gay candidate from Wexford ? I think you will find it was the PDs. My party never needed to make the LGBT community, or the female community feel loved. Those communiteis provided the party with some of its most dynamic and active members. Plus, Labour are a party of the opposition. Its far easier to be outside the tent pissing in, particularly in these dark days.

I really dont care what you do, but for what its worth I would ask you to wait and see the rest of our campaign. I know a big "Hist" head like yourself loves a bit o debate, but aside from that, what type of society have you built from the ground in 6 months ? What society have you built which can launch a regional wide campaign ? I can tell you, you have done nothing like it.

And frankly, I dont care if you dont like it, because the posters have recieved a far better response then you would have hoped for. One of those who gave a positive response is the former President of the European Movement, and Generation Yes's boss, Pat Cox. Thus, you citing of these organisations is irrelevant, as the posters did recieve the endorsement of their top man.

Tricity Bendix

For the love of Zeus, stop prattling on about yourself. This thread is about the Lisbon Treaty as it pertains to LGBT folk, not about your involvement, not about your views on affirmitive action, not even about the Labour Party.

The more I hear from these Liberal Society stooges, the more I want to vote No.

shay_562

Quick question - who the hell are you? And do I know you in real life? Or are the three references to a college debating society I used to be on the committee of simply gleaned from looking through my posting history to scrape together an ad hominem attack of your own? 'Cause if it's the latter, there's no words that accurately describe the mixture of creeped-out and depressed for you that I feel right now.

Het-Field wrote:

The Society is not seeking to talk down to the electorate, it is taking a lighthearted attitude.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I see the taking of "a light-hearted attitude" wrt something as serious as a national referendum to be taking the piss, and I think that's at best being disrespectful to the electorate, and at worst constitutes talking down. And I don't care if your campaign outside of posters is the most wonderful political campaign ever run. 2/3 of your posters are useless crap. Or, sorry, we'll stick with "low-brow". What you see as glib sloganising on other posters, I see as an attempt to engage the electorate on the issues, and it doesn't matter if your leaflet campaign is better; your posters are still bad.

Im entitled to my opinion on the concept of a "Lisbon is Good For the LGBT Community" platform.

Yes, you are, but this is the first post where you've actually expressed it (previously, if you'll recall, you "couldn't give a ****" about the topic of this thread and forum). And it's a decent one - I agree to some extent that pigeonholing people based on sexuality is bad. But I also think that minority or disavantages communities might be interested to hear which parts of a fairly massive treaty specifically relate to them, so having a leaflet explaining why the LGBT community stand to gain particularly is both a way of reaching out to a minority that, until a few decades ago, were basically ignored by the political establishment as a bunch of criminals and as a good political strategy. Now, the lack of actual content for Irish gay people - that's where I start to have a problem with this Labour campaign.

"50 Minuites active in Irish Politics". Try Four years and 8 months in various political capacities.

The Liberals were only established in June 2008 (and in fact, later in your post you refer to building a society in "6 months"...). Thus, when you speak on behalf of the Liberals directly contradicting information being spread by an older, more respectable organisation, I'm going to believe them over you. I don't care what you've personally done in the past. I'm sure you're deadly and have worked really hard etc :rolleyes: And I don't think the fact that I haven't campaigned for this treaty renders my opinion on your posters or on the merits and demerits for gay people to be null and void. I haven't campaigned because I don't believe strongly in either side. If anything, not beign caught up in a particular mindset or tied to any party means I'm not just spouting a party line when I dismiss your posters or ideas.

Finally, im entitled to enter any fourm I like, and proffer my views on any campaign I wish. I wont be told by a keyboard warrior like you where I can go.

Actually, you're not. This is the LGBT forum. This is a thread about how Lisbon relates to LGBT people. You spent two posts trying to derail it. That's what I took exception to. Defend the Liberals and the Treaty in the appropriate forum on the appropriate thread.

The PDs are dead, so you childish ad-hominem attacks are useless. Equally, the PDs did far more for Women's rights the Labour ever did. Which Party consistently had at least 30 % of its parlimentary party of the female sex ? Which party almost predicated it's election campaign on an openly gay candidate from Wexford ? I think you will find it was the PDs. My party never needed to make the LGBT community, or the female community feel loved. Those communiteis provided the party with some of its most dynamic and active members. Plus, Labour are a party of the opposition. Its far easier to be outside the tent pissing in, particularly in these dark days.

I'm ignoring the "childish ad-hominem attacks" part given that, as mentioned before, you call attention three separate times to my involvement with the Hist to try and discredit my posts. As for the rest, irrelevant. My point was that embracing disadvantaged or minority groups specifically rather than just having them be part of the furniture (and seriously, it's easier to have 30% of your parliamentary party be female when you're crashing and burning in elections) has, for better or worse, worked pretty well for Labour. Nothing you've said refutes that.

And frankly, I dont care if you dont like it, because the posters have recieved a far better response then you would have hoped for. One of those who gave a positive response is the former President of the European Movement, and Generation Yes's boss, Pat Cox. Thus, you citing of these organisations is irrelevant, as the posters did recieve the endorsement of their top man.

First of all, I referenced those organisations in response to you claiming (based on my suggestion that we'd lose a permanent commissioner without Lisbon) that I was lying and had no idea what I was on about. I cited those organisations, who have both made similar claims, as my source of that information. Given that you didn't respond, should I take it that you concede that I was right about us losing a permanent commissioner if we vote No? Or do you maintain that Gen Yes and the European Movement are wrong?

Second, I don't care if the posters are popular, or if Pat Cox (who as far as I know isn't Gen Yes' boss; that'd be Andrew Byrne, if their website is to be believed. Or do you know something we all don't?) likes them. Something being popular doesn't make it any more worthwhile. Appealing to the lowest common denominator with cheap pop culture references will always win you fans. That doesn't mean it isn't cheapening the tone and level of political debate in this country.

Het-Field

shay_562 wrote: »

Quick question - who the hell are you? And do I know you in real life? Or are the three references to a college debating society I used to be on the committee of simply gleaned from looking through my posting history to scrape together an ad hominem attack of your own? 'Cause if it's the latter, there's no words that accurately describe the mixture of creeped-out and depressed for you that I feel right now.



To-may-to, to-mah-to. I see the taking of "a light-hearted attitude" wrt something as serious as a national referendum to be taking the piss, and I think that's at best being disrespectful to the electorate, and at worst constitutes talking down. And I don't care if your campaign outside of posters is the most wonderful political campaign ever run. 2/3 of your posters are useless crap. Or, sorry, we'll stick with "low-brow". What you see as glib sloganising on other posters, I see as an attempt to engage the electorate on the issues, and it doesn't matter if your leaflet campaign is better; your posters are still bad.



Yes, you are, but this is the first post where you've actually expressed it (previously, if you'll recall, you "couldn't give a ****" about the topic of this thread and forum). And it's a decent one - I agree to some extent that pigeonholing people based on sexuality is bad. But I also think that minority or disavantages communities might be interested to hear which parts of a fairly massive treaty specifically relate to them, so having a leaflet explaining why the LGBT community stand to gain particularly is both a way of reaching out to a minority that, until a few decades ago, were basically ignored by the political establishment as a bunch of criminals and as a good political strategy. Now, the lack of actual content for Irish gay people - that's where I start to have a problem with this Labour campaign.



The Liberals were only established in June 2008 (and in fact, later in your post you refer to building a society in "6 months"...). Thus, when you speak on behalf of the Liberals directly contradicting information being spread by an older, more respectable organisation, I'm going to believe them over you. I don't care what you've personally done in the past. I'm sure you're deadly and have worked really hard etc :rolleyes: And I don't think the fact that I haven't campaigned for this treaty renders my opinion on your posters or on the merits and demerits for gay people to be null and void. I haven't campaigned because I don't believe strongly in either side. If anything, not beign caught up in a particular mindset or tied to any party means I'm not just spouting a party line when I dismiss your posters or ideas.



Actually, you're not. This is the LGBT forum. This is a thread about how Lisbon relates to LGBT people. You spent two posts trying to derail it. That's what I took exception to. Defend the Liberals and the Treaty in the appropriate forum on the appropriate thread.



I'm ignoring the "childish ad-hominem attacks" part given that, as mentioned before, you call attention three separate times to my involvement with the Hist to try and discredit my posts. As for the rest, irrelevant. My point was that embracing disadvantaged or minority groups specifically rather than just having them be part of the furniture (and seriously, it's easier to have 30% of your parliamentary party be female when you're crashing and burning in elections) has, for better or worse, worked pretty well for Labour. Nothing you've said refutes that.



First of all, I referenced those organisations in response to you claiming (based on my suggestion that we'd lose a permanent commissioner without Lisbon) that I was lying and had no idea what I was on about. I cited those organisations, who have both made similar claims, as my source of that information. Given that you didn't respond, should I take it that you concede that I was right about us losing a permanent commissioner if we vote No? Or do you maintain that Gen Yes and the European Movement are wrong?

Second, I don't care if the posters are popular, or if Pat Cox (who as far as I know isn't Gen Yes' boss; that'd be Andrew Byrne, if their website is to be believed. Or do you know something we all don't?) likes them. Something being popular doesn't make it any more worthwhile. Appealing to the lowest common denominator with cheap pop culture references will always win you fans. That doesn't mean it isn't cheapening the tone and level of political debate in this country.

Be creeped out and depressed for me all you want. I certainly think no less of myself, and a keyboard warrior like yourself will not persuade me otherwise.

You pretentions attitudes to politics, and what constitutes debate astounds me. Seeing as you failed to rebut the point I made regarding bogus claims, and glib assertions, I shall assume you conceed that. Do you believe that Coir's assertions of the potential for a reduction in the minimum wage after Lisbon is relevant to the debate ? Does the fact that their legal advisor has withdrawn the assertion, even though it has made a far reaching impact, not trouble you ? Or has it a value as it "added to the debate" ? Equally, aside from a commitment to investigate job creation, the treaty will not directly create one job. Not one. Yet it attempts to play on the fears of the 600,000 people who will be unemployed by Christmas. I see that as highly irresponsible in the case of the latter, and a dispicible trait in the former. Our posters are neither irresponsible, nor are they seeking to misrepresent the Treaty as anything more than a highly complex reformation of the EU's structures, and power structures.

You have qualified your earlier assertion about "keeping our commissioner", with the use of the word "permanent". We were never going to lose a commissioner. It was simply going to be operated on a rotationary basis, as outlined under the treaty of Nice. I never suggested that they lied about the commissioner, or about "keeping it". We are keeping our commissioner, and before the guarantee, we were equally would have kept the commissioner, had Ireland voted yes in 2008.

I dont wish to derail the thread, and I didnt intend to do so when answering Tricity Bendix's point. You sought to stick your oar in, when our discussion had ceased last night. You revived the discussion, and I felt compelled to outline my point of view.

You dont like our posters, fine. I know many people who do. So I know there are a variety of educated, and capable people who would diagree with your intellectual arrogance about "issues". Of course, this is regardless of whether the issues are falsifications, overblown assertions based on contemporary concerns, or simple statements, which are of no consequence to the debate.

shay_562

Het-Field wrote:

Be creeped out and depressed for me all you want. I certainly think no less of myself, and a keyboard warrior like yourself will not persuade me otherwise.

So that's a "yes", then, to the "went through my posting history to look for personal details that you could use to attack me" thing? And the best you could find was "is involved with a student debating society"? I think this is the point where I give up on you, and this argument, which is now just going around in circles. Stalking is bad enough. Incompetent stalking is just pathetic.

Het-Field

shay_562 wrote: »

So that's a "yes", then, to the "went through my posting history to look for personal details that you could use to attack me" thing? And the best you could find was "is involved with a student debating society"? I think this is the point where I give up on you, and this argument, which is now just going around in circles. Stalking is bad enough. Incompetent stalking is just pathetic.

Most boardsies I know ometimes take a browse through posting history. I was debating with you at the time. Its not "incompetent" stalking , or stalking at all to take a look at previous posts.

Interesting how you danced around the question I posed. However, I agree that its going round in a circle.

Whatever. Im out of this thread.