NO Voters - Which group are you closest to?

Euro_Kraut

There are many groups opposing the treaty. Some from a left wing perceptive, some from a right wing perspective, some from nationalist, some from religious and some from a feminist perspective.

So to understand from what perceptive you are opposing this treaty from can you say which of the following groups best represent your critisms of the Lisbon treaty?

- Coir
- Libertas
- Pana
- Sinn Fein
- National Platform
- Socialist Party
- People before Profit
- People Movement (Patrica McKennas group)
- UKIP
- Women Say No to Lisbon
- Eirigi
- Unite (Trade Union)

While perhaps no one group represents your views completely, I would still be interested in hearing which groups criticism of the Treaty are closest to yours?

Mods: Can you add a poll to this prehaps? Also would appreciate it if you could add in a important group that I have forgot.

bobgob

all and none of the above, I think the race to the bottom has to be looked at.
jobs and the lack of them is the main problem we have, taking people out of good jobs and giving them to min wage staff is only breaking our backs, because then we have to pay double for the unemployed and the low earners while the big boys get away scot free.

We will have to deal with the poor forever the rich can wine and dine even on their losses, when will this country ever wake up, this is not a republic its a feckin joke.

Its time to be free and time to get out of your armchair.

Say what you see, corruption, bribery, misplacement of our money, and complete and other greed and thats just our leaders, the bankers and their croneys are laughing their feckin heads off at us, whats the point in speculating if you have a trap door to get you out even if you feck it up, jesus its better than the lotto.
Lets get our heads out of the sand and fight this

---

I did have a few words to go in there but you can fill it in yourself.

Sam Vimes

While I agree with you for the most part, what does any of that have to do with the Lisbon treaty?

Euro_Kraut

Bobgob, I'll stick you down for 'Socialist Party' on the strength of the 'race to the bottom' line. I definitely sense their is a leftist perceptive in there.

That ok with you?

bobgob

well the race to the bottom has begun, workers have very few things to be happy about now but if the lisbon treaty is passed the race to the bottom, ie the bigger profits for the bigger companys will only get better for them.

I worked for Dublin Bus a few years ago when the goverment was trying to privitise their service, they didnt do it because someone in the dpt of transport told them it was impossible, why because they were afraid of the union and what we may of done to their (at that time ) perfect world.

Workers and the unemployed (usually can be placed in the same bracket these days) have everything to fear from the Lisbon treaty it brings mana from heaven to the employers and sends the worker to hell.

bobgob

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Bobgob, I'll stick you down for 'Socialist Party' on the strength of the 'race to the bottom' line. I definitely sense their is a leftist perceptive in there.

That ok with you?

yeah no problem with that.

before this nama thing I only watched the news for the sports and weather, when I got chucked from my job I started to look left, then they told me because they were only making 200 million for the first 6 months of the year it kind of pushed me over the edge, my kids now have to get their education from you and the rest of the working people of Ireland, because the bastards that I work for fecked me out, no Im not left Im angry and as you all know I cant be angry and be ff or green.

Scofflaw

Can we stay on topic please? This is quite a specific thread, not yet another discussion of Lisbon itself.

[EDIT]Sigh. Moved posts to "How do you intend to vote?" thread. Next off-topic post by same posters earns rap on knuckles.[/EDIT]

moderately,
Scofflaw

The Volt

Just the thread I was waiting to see. When these people are pro-something it is usually a stand alone reason to vote against them.

The Volt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While I agree with you for the most part, what does any of that have to do with the Lisbon treaty?

This response to the first reply pretty much sums up the majority of the no campaign on boards.

O'Morris

The National Platform would best represent my views on the Lisbon treaty and on further European integration. I think it's a pity that Anthony Coughlan isn't taking more of a prominent role in the referendum campaign.

The Immigration Control Platform (anti-Lisbon but missing from the list above) and the UKIP best represent my views on mass immigration. If there was an Irish Independence Party with the same policies as the UKIPers I would probably vote for them.

squod

I don't see any of these groups talking about the way voting structures will change under Lisbon. Also it seems to be only the UKIP asking why it is that we're voting so soon on the same treaty, without much discussion across Europe.

The Volt

When I first noticed this thread I thought it read 'which group are you closet to?' how appropriate

StealthRolex

I too would go with the National Platform as they are raising the same concerns I have in regards to this issue.

ascanbe

I voted No last time and don't consider myself close to any of these groups; is that allowed?
There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other, preferably one that can be easily portrayed as 'loons'.

The Volt

ascanbe wrote: »

I voted No last time and don't consider myself close to any of these groups; is that allowed?
There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other, preferably one that can be easily portrayed as 'loons'.

Mainly because the reasons given for No votes have come from the above mentioned groups

turgon

ascanbe wrote: »

There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other

I voted No the last time and the only person who ever attempted to pigeon-hole me was a fellow No voter, who asked was my voting no for Right reasons of Left reasons.

Euro_Kraut

ascanbe wrote: »

I voted No last time and don't consider myself close to any of these groups; is that allowed?
There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other, preferably one that can be easily portrayed as 'loons'.

Janyey, relax. I am only asking which group you are ideologically closest too. Your reasons for voting no must be most similar one or other of theses groups. You surely must agree with some of what these groups are saying? Which do you agree most with?

On aside note, why do you consider these groups listed to be 'loons'? I wouldn't be inclined to label SF or Libertas or The Socialist Party as 'loons'.

StealthRolex

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Janyey, relax. I am only asking which group you are ideologically closest too. Your reasons for voting no must be most similar one or other of theses groups. You surely must agree with some of what these groups are saying? Which do you agree most with?

On aside note, why do you consider these groups listed to be 'loons'? I wouldn't be inclined to label SF or Libertas or The Socialist Party as 'loons'.

Euro_Kraut, if you've been around these boards and this particular discussion over the last few weeks it is patently obvious that there are a certain number of Yes posters who immediately class any and all No voters as loonies and nut cases and lump them in with the nuts and nay sayers.

I've worked enough referenda campaigns in the past to know that each side, regardless of their point of view, should be treated with equal respect until they do or say something that indicates no further quarter should be given. This is democracy in action and in general the opposing opinions are usually valid. They may in some cases be misguided but as opinions go they are valid.

I was posting on these boards but had to desist due to the comments from the yes quarter that were frankly insulting at best. There are a few, but unfortunately they are few, who earned respect but in general the nature of most responses were not diplomatic.

SF and the Socialists have been labelled in these discussions as "extremist" and Libertas has been lambasted no end.

But as I said, I have worked campaigns in the past and this is part and parcel of Irish culture. If someone opposes you and you cannot counter their argument call them a misguided looney to score the point.

Euro_Kraut

StealthRolex wrote: »

Euro_Kraut, if you've been around these boards and this particular discussion over the last few weeks it is patently obvious that there are a certain number of Yes posters who immediately class any and all No voters as loonies and nut cases and lump them in with the nuts and nay sayers.

Some might. That is not the purpose of this thread (or the corresponding YES one) though. I am interested to see what groups are most influential to each side and from what perspective posters here oppose the treaty.

You don't have to divulge that, but I resent the implication that the purpose of this is to label all NO Voters 'loons'. In fact by demonstrating solid ideological foundations for their NO vote I think people have the opportunity to dismiss that notion. People oppose this on legitimate ideological grounds. Let see what those are.

rowlandbrowner

I’m an unaffiliated socialist, so lump me in with Joe and his crowd if you want, i'm not a member, but I have voted for that party and attended meetings ect..

I'm voting No for the following reasons, and more...

I believe EU polices will contine to force workers to undercut each other, driving down wages, much to the happiness of employers.

I don't believe in privatising public services, we loose our power to resist this happening under Lisbon.

I won’t back a common foreign policy that won’t demand a state for the Palestinians with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The EDA and it's incorporation into the treaty.

There are certainly elements of Lisbon and Politics in general that I don’t comprehend correctly, I guess that’s the idea, but basically....

I’d like to elect a Democratic Socialist government in my lifetime, If we become more politically and economically involved with the EU that’s an impossibility.

I’d like to live in a United Europe, I’m not a Nationalist by any means, but the only Europe on the table at the moment is at odds with my political beliefs/hopes.

StealthRolex

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Some might. That is not the purpose of this thread (or the corresponding YES one) though. I am interested to see what groups are most influential to each side and from what perspective posters here oppose the treaty.

You don't have to divulge that, but I resent the implication that the purpose of this is to label all NO Voters 'loons'. In fact by demonstrating solid ideological foundations for their NO vote I think people have the opportunity to dismiss that notion. People oppose this on legitimate ideological grounds. Let see what those are.

No implication intended - I understand where you're coming from with the thread - just an observation of the behaviour of some Yes poster responses. No doubt there are some No posters guilty of similar.

OldJay

bobgob wrote: »

Workers and the unemployed (usually can be placed in the same bracket these days) . . .

Oh ffs . . . :rolleyes:

bobgob wrote: »

have everything to fear from the Lisbon treaty it brings mana from heaven to the employers and sends the worker to hell.

Y'know melodramatic rhetoric is all very well and good but for once, I'd love a naysayer to actually back up their alleged reasoning with some solid directly attributable fact exemplified with relevant extracts of said Treaty.
C'mon. Go for it . . .

Sam Vimes

Justind wrote: »

Y'know melodramatic rhetoric is all very well and good but for once, I'd love a naysayer to actually back up their alleged reasoning with some solid directly attributable fact exemplified with relevant extracts of said Treaty.
C'mon. Go for it . . .

The example I keep hearing to prove this is a ruling from Sweden that Latvian workers could be paid Latvian rates when working in Sweden. They miss out two important factors:

1. Sweden has no minimum wage and if it did the court would not have ruled the way it did
2. This has already happened and has nothing to do with the treaty

http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=96

StealthRolex

Justind wrote: »

Y'know melodramatic rhetoric is all very well and good but for once, I'd love a naysayer to actually back up their alleged reasoning with some solid directly attributable fact exemplified with relevant extracts of said Treaty.
C'mon. Go for it . . .

a bit of equilibrium would go a long way here - can the yahsayers back up their reasoning re jobs, recovery etc with relevant extracts from the Treaty?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

a bit of equilibrium would go a long way here - can the yahsayers back up their reasoning re jobs, recovery etc with relevant extracts from the Treaty?

A post I have made previously:

If we vote it down again that cements us as a country that's going against the grain in Europe even though being in Europe is one of our most important advantages and creates uncertainty about our future as the EU moves on and we try to fight them every step of the way. I can't say for sure what the consequences of a second no will be but neither can you say that there will be no consequences and it's the "safe" option

As I said on another thread, Ireland is becoming unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Even if they only include things that Ireland can opt out of in future treaties they're not sure to pass because some group could easily tell us that they're not really allowing us to opt out and we might believe them as we've believed all the other lies. Besides which they don't want to limit themselves to only changes that countries can opt out of. Really the only way to have any confidence of getting a treaty passed in future is for Ireland to be excluded entirely.

So that's the consequence of a no vote. Ireland becomes the only country that has voted down three EU treaties and is putting the entire future of the EU in jeopardy because we can stall progress all we want and we're impossible to negotiate with because our objections have little or nothing to do with the treaties we're voting down. And that situation can only go on so long before the other 500 million people tell us to fcuk off and let them get on with their plans

Then we have an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

Mr Cowen said all the main business groupings and the Irish heads of several multi-national firms were “crystal clear” in their view that reluctance to endorse the treaty, together with the resulting perception that “we are somewhat a-la-carte in terms of our commitment to Europe”, would make it more difficult to attract and secure inward investment.

“Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, to the exporters of Ireland, to the farmers’ representative groups and to the employers themselves.

“Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.”

The treaty will have implications beyond the text written in it. The difference between the yes side talking about a yes vote helping recovery and the various no side predictions is that a yes vote helping recovery is a possibility and all of the people best positioned to confirm the probability of the prediction support it while the no side predictions are simply lies. They will never happen, ever because they're not true in any way whatsoever. The only one that has even a slim chance of happening is that a no vote might hasten a general election but it's extremely unlikely because his main opponents also support Lisbon so none of them would have any more of a mandate on the issue and is extremely unwise because a no vote will do far more damage to the country than it will to FF

turgon

StealthRolex wrote: »

If someone opposes you and you cannot counter their argument call them a misguided looney to score the point.

No, the problem is that we can oppose them and prove them wrong yet they continue in spouting their lies.

As a No voter last time, I was treated with a great level of respect here (more than I deserved).

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A post I have made previously:


Then we have an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

So, do you have anything of substance from the Treaty itself?

Anything at all? From the Treaty maybe?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

So, do you have anything of substance from the Treaty itself?

Anything at all? From the Treaty maybe?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The treaty will have implications beyond the text written in it. The difference between the yes side talking about a yes vote helping recovery and the various no side predictions is that a yes vote helping recovery is a possibility and all of the people best positioned to confirm the probability of the prediction support it while the no side predictions are simply lies. They will never happen, ever because they're not true in any way whatsoever.

What is your point? Is your suggestion seriously that Ireland's acceptance or rejection of the treaty cannot possibly have any implications that are not explicitly spelled out in one of the articles?

rowlandbrowner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If we vote it down again that cements us as a country that's going against the grain in Europe even though being in Europe is one of our most important advantages and creates uncertainty about our future as the EU moves on and we try to fight them every step of the way. I can't say for sure what the consequences of a second no will be but neither can you say that there will be no consequences and it's the "safe" option

As I said on another thread, Ireland is becoming unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Even if they only include things that Ireland can opt out of in future treaties they're not sure to pass because some group could easily tell us that they're not really allowing us to opt out and we might believe them as we've believed all the other lies. Besides which they don't want to limit themselves to only changes that countries can opt out of. Really the only way to have any confidence of getting a treaty passed in future is for Ireland to be excluded entirely.

So that's the consequence of a no vote. Ireland becomes the only country that has voted down three EU treaties and is putting the entire future of the EU in jeopardy because we can stall progress all we want and we're impossible to negotiate with because our objections have little or nothing to do with the treaties we're voting down. And that situation can only go on so long before the other 500 million people tell us to fcuk off and let them get on with their plans

In short, we should make political decisions to suit the needs of big business. Assume the position and get ready to get f**ked by the unforgiving phallus of investment.

Is there anything in the treaty, not that you seemed bothered with its actual content, which prevents these companies from leaving Ireland when they can operate cheaper somewhere else.

Its pandering to these economic forces that got the world in the state it’s in.

Scofflaw

Like all the treaties, Lisbon tries to balance the need for business freedom (to make jobs) with labour's right to be protected in those jobs.

You may not like the way the world is, but it's what most people vote for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

In short, we should make political decisions to suit the needs of big business. Assume the position and get ready to get f**ked by the unforgiving phallus of investment.

Is there anything in the treaty, not that you seemed bothered with its actual content, which prevents these companies from leaving Ireland when they can operate cheaper somewhere else.

Its pandering to these economic forces that got the world in the state it’s in.

Those economic forces have created ~140,000 jobs in this country. Their needs are our needs. I am quite bothered with the treaty's content btw and if you search my post history you will see that. I was asked a question that cannot be answered by referring to the treaty contents and so I did not refer to the treaty contents in my reply. In direct answer to StealthRolex's question, no there is no article which specifically states "100,000 jobs will be created in Ireland" but to point this out is disingenuous because, as I have said, the treaty will have implications far beyond the text of its articles. You know that, I know that and StealthRolex knows that but it suits his argument to ignore it.

One of the things that makes companies leave Ireland is the fact that they can operate cheaper elsewhere but that is not the only factor they consider. Another previous post of mine:

. No one has ever claimed that we'll be kicked out but Europe wants to move on and a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries can't stop them forever. They will, and are perfectly entitled to, rewrite the treaty to exclude Ireland, only enacting the changes that Ireland can opt out of. That way they get most of the changes they want and we get to stay where we are, all on our own.

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

So, in short, no one's saying we're getting kicked out of the EU but that's not the only way Ireland can be negatively effected

This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Irish heads of several multi-national firms, employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, farmers’ representative groups and the employers themselves. As the article I linked to says, those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.

If you think you know more about how the economy works than them then feel free to ignore them. Personally I don't

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Irish heads of several multi-national firms, employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, farmers’ representative groups and the employers themselves. As the article I linked to says, those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.

If you think you know more about how the economy works than them then feel free to ignore them. Personally I don't

It's not a case of ignoring them it's a case of looking at where their loyalties lie.

With indigenous Irish firms (please don't use Waterford as an example) there is a greater interest in staying in Ireland.
Why should we continue to pander to the inward foreign investor? We have a bright, intelligent, educated and informed workforce and probably quite a few willing to risk it to start new businesses. We need to change our attitude and stop sending the message that we need companies to come here. What we need to do is develop our own skills and resources.

Regardless of what the Treaty says or does, ratified or not foreign companies will remain foreign and as soon as the opportunity arises to move operations to a more cost effective area they will move.

Why oh why do we keep repeating the mistakes of history? How many more Dells, Wangs, Motorolas, Asahi's, Fruit of the Looms do we need?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not a case of ignoring them it's a case of looking at where their loyalties lie.

With indigenous Irish firms (please don't use Waterford as an example) there is a greater interest in staying in Ireland.
Why should we continue to pander to the inward foreign investor? We have a bright, intelligent, educated and informed workforce and probably quite a few willing to risk it to start new businesses. We need to change our attitude and stop sending the message that we need companies to come here. What we need to do is develop our own skills and resources.

Regardless of what the Treaty says or does, ratified or not foreign companies will remain foreign and as soon as the opportunity arises to move operations to a more cost effective area they will move.

Why oh why do we keep repeating the mistakes of history? How many more Dells, Wangs, Motorolas, Asahi's, Fruit of the Looms do we need?

We need to do both though, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do far more to to encourage native enterprise. I would like us to move away from using the term 'Knowledge Economy' as a political buzzword and towards taking some firm and meaningful action to actually make it so.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not a case of ignoring them it's a case of looking at where their loyalties lie

Their loyalties lie with the place that will make them the most money at the least risk. The rejection of three European treaties increases the risk that Ireland will not go along with the rest of Europe and these are the people they want to sell to.

StealthRolex wrote: »

With indigenous Irish firms (please don't use Waterford as an example) there is a greater interest in staying in Ireland.
Why should we continue to pander to the inward foreign investor? We have a bright, intelligent, educated and informed workforce and probably quite a few willing to risk it to start new businesses. We need to change our attitude and stop sending the message that we need companies to come here. What we need to do is develop our own skills and resources.

Regardless of what the Treaty says or does, ratified or not foreign companies will remain foreign and as soon as the opportunity arises to move operations to a more cost effective area they will move.

Why oh why do we keep repeating the mistakes of history? How many more Dells, Wangs, Motorolas, Asahi's, Fruit of the Looms do we need?

Yes Ireland probably could start more companies themselves but that does not mean we should stick two fingers up to foreign investment, we can have both. This exchange has gone exactly the same way every other exchange I've had on this matter:

1. No voter says that the treaty has nothing to do with the economy
2. I point out how it could very much have an effect on the economy and that the biggest players in our economy all agree it will
3. No voter attempts to downplay this and make out that it doesn't matter

So which is it? Will the treaty have no effect on our economy or is it that it quite easily could but it doesn't matter if all those multi-billion dollar companies pull out because Ireland might be able to replace all those jobs if we set our minds to starting companies that some day might be as big as those companies?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. No voter says that the treaty has nothing to do with the economy

I'd just like to quote Tesco's sources; 'Tesco Ireland’s domestic spend was €1.28 billion on Irish goods, including food, and its operations were worth €2.5 billion a year to the Irish economy, supporting 27,000 jobs in the Republic.' ( Irish Times, May 20, 2009)

Another company you don't see reacting to the Lisbon referendum. They haven't released an opinion for or against the Lisbon treaty. Drawing direct parallels between improving the economy and voting for Lisbon does seem a weak argument IMO.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

I'd just like to quote Tesco's sources; 'Tesco Ireland’s domestic spend was €1.28 billion on Irish goods, including food, and its operations were worth €2.5 billion a year to the Irish economy, supporting 27,000 jobs in the Republic.' ( Irish Times, May 20, 2009)

Another company you don't see reacting to the Lisbon referendum. They haven't released an opinion for or against the Lisbon treaty. Drawing direct parallels between improving the economy and voting for Lisbon does seem a weak argument IMO.

you point to one company that hasn't released an opinion on the treaty and use this to suggest that there is no link between the treaty and potential economic improvement

What about the many companies that have released an opinion on the treaty? Are they all wrong because Tesco hasn't released one?

oscarBravo

squod wrote: »

I'd just like to quote Tesco's sources; 'Tesco Ireland’s domestic spend was €1.28 billion on Irish goods, including food, and its operations were worth €2.5 billion a year to the Irish economy, supporting 27,000 jobs in the Republic.' ( Irish Times, May 20, 2009)

Another company you don't see reacting to the Lisbon referendum. They haven't released an opinion for or against the Lisbon treaty. Drawing direct parallels between improving the economy and voting for Lisbon does seem a weak argument IMO.

I think if I was running Tesco, I'd be very cautious about being seen to openly support anything to do with the EU. It wouldn't play well in certain circles back home.

PomBear

i'm closest to Sinn Féin I guess as i'm a member of ógra shinn féin

Euro_Kraut

PomBear wrote: »

i'm closest to Sinn Féin I guess as i'm a member of ógra shinn féin

Cool. Thanks for being on-topic!

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you point to one company that hasn't released an opinion on the treaty and use this to suggest that there is no link between the treaty and potential economic improvement

What about the many companies that have released an opinion on the treaty? Are they all wrong because Tesco hasn't released one?

You asked a question, 'Will the treaty have no effect on our economy'.......
I've given my response, told you my opinion and said that there are companies that haven't commented on the Lisbon referendum at all.

With regard to the companies seeking a majority yes vote, I have not heard even one of them ask why we are voting again so soon on the same treaty. Nor have I heard them comment on the the way voting structures will change under Lisbon and how those changes will effect democracy accross Europe.

Perhaps if someone put these points to them I would have a clearer understanding as to why they would like a majority yes vote.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

You asked a question, 'Will the treaty have no effect on our economy'.......
I've given my response, told you my opinion and said that there are companies that haven't commented on the Lisbon referendum at all.

Yes and I could give you a few billion organisations that haven't said the treaty will be bad. The organisations that haven't voiced any opinion on the treaty are irrelevant.

squod wrote: »

With regard to the companies seeking a majority yes vote, I have not heard even one of them ask why we are voting again so soon on the same treaty.

But it's been explained here 1,596,682,383,947,349,283,294,349,394,587,183 times (give or take) and the reasoning makes perfect sense so, again, the fact that they haven't given an opinion on that matter is irrelevant. I'm talking only about the things they have said, not the infinite number of things that they haven't.

squod wrote: »

Nor have I heard them comment on the the way voting structures will change under Lisbon and how those changes will effect democracy accross Europe.

Perhaps if someone put these points to them I would have a clearer understanding as to why the would like a majority yes vote.

You could of course accept the reasons they have given for supporting a yes vote, instead of searching for some unknown ulterior motive so you can dismiss them. They think it will be beneficial to the economy and Ireland in general and this benefits them. Their motives for supporting a yes vote are crystal clear. They don't give a crap about voting weights, they care about Ireland signalling an intention to be fully involved in EU affairs going into the future, instead of the stumbling block that's preventing progress for no good reason and pulling away from its neighbours

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes and I could give you a few billion organisations that haven't said the treaty will be bad. The organisations that haven't voiced any opinion on the treaty are irrelevant.


1/ But it's been explained here 1,596,682,383,947,349,283,294,349,394,587,183 times (give or take) and the reasoning makes perfect sense .


2/They don't give a crap about voting weights,

1/ Are you saying the reason makes perfect sense to you? We've been given reassurances by our government on some issues. These reassurances won't be printed on the ballot paper and so are not conditional if they fall through. I asked why we're voting again so soon. Not why we're voting again.


2/ I'm a voter and I do give a crap about voting weights. So should you!
This is the essence of the treaty, and you say these companies couldn't give a crap about it. Maybe we shouldn't be listening to them so.

panda100

Scofflaw wrote: »

Can we stay on topic please? This is quite a specific thread, not yet another discussion of Lisbon itself.

[EDIT]Sigh. Moved posts to "How do you intend to vote?" thread. Next off-topic post by same posters earns rap on knuckles.[/EDIT]

moderately,
Scofflaw

No rap on knuckles for anyone yet??

Id be Socialist party.

Judgement Day

I'm not a member of any political party - never have been - but the nearest group would have to be the United Kingdom Independence Party although I wouldn't support a complete withdrawal from the EU.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

1/ Are you saying the reason makes perfect sense to you? We've been given reassurances by our government on some issues. These reassurances won't be printed on the ballot paper and so are not conditional if they fall through. I asked why we're voting again so soon. Not why we're voting again.

It makes perfect sense in general. We had issues, they were addressed, they asked us again. What difference does the time between votes make?

squod wrote: »

2/ I'm a voter and I do give a crap about voting weights. So should you!
This is the essence of the treaty, and you say these companies couldn't give a crap about it. Maybe we shouldn't be listening to them so.

Our voting weight isn't that big anyway so it dropping a percent or two makes little difference to me. Also a voting weight based on our population is more democratic. Also it's only one of the requirements of double majority voting, the other giving us a weight the same as every other country. And finally I don't see the EU as an adversary that's trying to force things on us, they do everything through negotiation. We might get some stuff we don't want but equally we'll get stuff that we want that Germany doesn't. Our goals aren't so different to theirs that something catastrophic will go against us. They're Europeans, not nazis. And I say that in the knowledge that the important stuff is still unanimous

But besides all that, the only reason I care what businesses are saying is in the context of a vote helping or damaging the economy. There are other issues in the treaty but I get that information elsewhere. People on the no side say voting yes will not help the economy but the people who understand the economy best disagree. I'm going with the experts

PrivateEye

As a pro choice worker, firmly opposed to the far right, I have nothing but disdain for Coir, and have made that known to them any time I've encountered them. If Lisbon falls or if Lisbon passes, they'll still be outside the GPO each and every weekend forcing their religious agenda down peoples throats.

No Voters Against Coir would have been the car sticker of the Referendum for me, pity. Still, always next year.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

There are many groups opposing the treaty. Some from a left wing perceptive, some from a right wing perspective, some from nationalist, some from religious and some from a feminist perspective.

So to understand from what perceptive you are opposing this treaty from can you say which of the following groups best represent your critisms of the Lisbon treaty?

- Coir
- Libertas
- Pana
- Sinn Fein
- National Platform
- Socialist Party
- People before Profit
- People Movement (Patrica McKennas group)
- UKIP
- Women Say No to Lisbon
- Eirigi
- Unite (Trade Union)

While perhaps no one group represents your views completely, I would still be interested in hearing which groups criticism of the Treaty are closest to yours?

Mods: Can you add a poll to this prehaps? Also would appreciate it if you could add in a important group that I have forgot.

I don't like the question but I'll say that I'm groping in some sort of left-wing manner towards some kind of better deal for everyone. That's in general, so not just a better deal for the millionaire developers or the dole scroungers.

Make of that what you will. I don't support neo-cons or terrorists or fundamentalist catholics.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Euro_Kraut, if you've been around these boards and this particular discussion over the last few weeks it is patently obvious that there are a certain number of Yes posters who immediately class any and all No voters as loonies and nut cases and lump them in with the nuts and nay sayers.

I've worked enough referenda campaigns in the past to know that each side, regardless of their point of view, should be treated with equal respect until they do or say something that indicates no further quarter should be given. This is democracy in action and in general the opposing opinions are usually valid. They may in some cases be misguided but as opinions go they are valid.

I was posting on these boards but had to desist due to the comments from the yes quarter that were frankly insulting at best. There are a few, but unfortunately they are few, who earned respect but in general the nature of most responses were not diplomatic.

SF and the Socialists have been labelled in these discussions as "extremist" and Libertas has been lambasted no end.

But as I said, I have worked campaigns in the past and this is part and parcel of Irish culture. If someone opposes you and you cannot counter their argument call them a misguided looney to score the point.

There's been a broad campaign to discredit "no voters" as crazy people living in a bubble inside of some mad hatter's mansion or something. It's very insulting in fact to hear or read from someone saying that there's no sane reason to vote no. Any attempt to have a discussion with these people starts from the premise that "well, there's no reason to vote no anyways". The media bias has to be evident even to the most hardcore "yes" voter.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Like all the treaties, Lisbon tries to balance the need for business freedom (to make jobs) with labour's right to be protected in those jobs.

You may not like the way the world is, but it's what most people vote for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah yeah but it's kinda balanced in one direction is it not ?

Of course it's a legal text that needs a court to interpret it but eh, the EU's all about free economy, finance, foreign investment, corporations. All that stuff. Btw, most people voted no last time ( as you well know).

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Ah yeah but it's kinda balanced in one direction is it not ?

That depends on your perspective. As I've said before, the fact that both the farther left and the farther right dislike the EU equally has always seemed to me a good indicator that it's reasonably balanced.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Of course it's a legal text that needs a court to interpret it but eh, the EU's all about free economy, finance, foreign investment, corporations. All that stuff.

A lot of it being controls on those things. And there's the social Europe aspects, of course, which is why people like ETUC support it. Any claim that the EU is some kind of right-wing machine has to cross the rather thorny issue that most of our progressive legislation comes form it.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Btw, most people voted no last time ( as you well know).

If only that's what I had been referring to, I'm sure such a rebuke would be well deserved. Luckily for my ego, it wasn't. I was, instead, referring to the fact that most people in Europe vote for broadly centrist parties - there are differences both from country to country and from time to time in the general public's preference for favouring the freedom of the market over the rights of workers, but broadly, since the advent of universal suffrage in Europe, the push has been towards the centre. Neither farther-right nor farther-left groups are reliably favoured by more than a small proportion of the population in most European countries most of the time, and for good reason, since they tend to substitute ideology for thought, and are almost uniformly unable to see pragmatic compromise as anything other than a deal with the devil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's been a broad campaign to discredit "no voters" as crazy people living in a bubble inside of some mad hatter's mansion or something.

I'm sorry but I think many No campaigners have discredited themselves. Sure some people have poked fun but only after these No campaigners hung themselves out to dry. The 'vote Yes to Lisbon and the EU will eat your babies' kinda nonsense that was been paraded out over and over speaks for itself.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It's very insulting in fact to hear or read from someone saying that there's no sane reason to vote no. Any attempt to have a discussion with these people starts from the premise that "well, there's no reason to vote no anyways".

I'm not trying to insult you but maybe there isn't any majorly sane reason to vote No, not that I've seen anyway. The No campaigns depiction of the EU is like no EU I've ever come across in any reality. Most of the reasons I've seen to vote No, from the more rational No voters, have revolved around a perceived loss of 'sovereignty'. Personally I think this loss of sovereignty idea is nonsense, no small export led country can have this kind of sovereignty to begin with.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The media bias has to be evident even to the most hardcore "yes" voter.

I think you're mistaking the media not agreeing with you as bias. Maybe you're just simply wrong in what you believe.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Of course it's a legal text that needs a court to interpret it...

Nope, no legal document has ever needed a court to interpret it, not even the Irish constitution, not ever. Oh wait...
That said I've read it myself and it's not generally difficult to understand, if I can do it anyone can.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

...the EU's all about free economy, finance, foreign investment, corporations. All that stuff.

You must have forgotten all that workers rights legislation, and all the equal rights legislation... I could go on but you get the point.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Btw, most people voted no last time ( as you well know).

Ah you must have 'forgotten' that 28% of the electorate voted No the last time. And the largest percentage of them for reasons that are not in the treaty. So not even close to 'most people', as you should well know.


You talk about media bias and yet repeat that "most people voted no last time" when given the length of time you've been posting here there should be no way you'd make that mistake. I've seen a majority of No campaigners play footloose and fancy free with the truth and then continually claim bias against them, then not see the really ironic nature of what they're doing.

OldJay

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's been a broad campaign to discredit "no voters" as crazy people living in a bubble inside of some mad hatter's mansion or something

There's no broad campaign at all. The "no voters" (in particular, whoever this mysterious Cóir are) are doing this to themselves. Misleading and wildly incorrect assertions on the tenets of the Treaty via emotional blackmail (otherwise known as LIES) on issues that are not affected by it are basically turning around and biting them on the ass. This will be reflected in the final voting tallies.

The latest set of posters littering my view as I drive down the quays this morning shows them in their true light. Hopefully other people will also recognise the detrimental effects of so-called "pro-life" Catholic hardliners wanting to hijack a constitutional issue that bears no effect on their main agenda.

I would like to know who funds Cóir and whether or not taxpayer money of any kind is being siphoned into that organisation in any way.

Sam Vimes

meglome wrote: »

I think you're mistaking the media not agreeing with you as bias. Maybe you're just simply wrong in what you believe.

Absolutely. Any time I hear that I think of creationists accusing people of bias and trying to get a 10000 year old earth taught as an equally valid theory to evolution.

In fact I think in some cases they're worse than creationists because evolution is a difficult concept and I can see why someone wouldn't understand it but when someone says that the guarantees aren't legally binding and you show them the sentence that says they are.......and a ten page thread of ridiculous "what if's" follows it becomes very difficult not to dismiss them the same way we do creationists.

And if we do we get accused of a campaign to discredit no voters and I die a little inside