Tom McGurk broadcaster, poet & journalist tells it like it is re Lisbon

moondogspot

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/euro-federalists-bully-us-and-buy-our-vote-44635.html

The run-in to the Lisbon II vote on Friday, which should have been an example of a 2009 modern European democratic exercise at work, has become a depressing and shabby experience.

If anything, it has only heightened concerns about any prospect of a visible and accountable European political entity emerging at the end of it all.

These have been terrible days for Irish democracy.

From the outset, the Euro federalists were outraged that little Ireland had dared to reject Lisbon.

This time, they were determined to roll out their big guns. Having conspired to slip the treaty through the various national parliaments after the democratic rebuff they received on the European Constitution, they were astonished that the Irish had used the people’s sovereignty, guaranteed in the Irish Constitution, to say No.

This time around, they determined that it would be different and, although European money could not be spent on a national referendum, suddenly a wide collection of proLisbon groups seemingly mushroomed out of the zeitgeist.

No doubt the Yes side, having secretly spent large amounts of money to probe scientifically the increasingly anxious public mood in the middle of our escalating financial crisis, came out determined to frighten voters onto the Yes side.

As the electorate has suffered the vista of disappearing jobs, escalating costs and a collapsing economy, selling the message that rejecting Lisbon would make it all worse was a no-brainer.

Quite simply, the subtext of the Yes campaign has been that we are approaching financial disaster so we cannot afford any political luxuries - including having a row over the federalisation of the European Union.

It has been as simple as that - and it has been as effective as it has been bogus. Even in a week in which the EU sanctioned a huge loan from the Polish government to move Dell jobs from Limerick to Lodz, the Yes voters were still brazening out the attractions of the globalisation ambitions of Lisbon.

Astonishingly, even the Irish trade unions don’t seem to have spotted that, for multinationals, Lisbon will signal an increasing race to the bottom in wages and conditions. Indeed, with EU enlargement beyond our ability to veto, if Lisbon comes about, look out for sweat-shop labour conditions to come in Croatia, Turkey and even Ukraine a generation down the road.

The Irish political establishment, too, has been calling in all the favours.

It has been fascinating to watch the huge numbers of those who enjoy massive salaries, courtesy of the taxpayer, as members of our numerous quangos, come out singing for their supper.

They even have the celebrity clowns out, the former sports stars and the second-hand car salesmen and the singers and actors all enjoying their 15 minutes of fame and self-publicity.

But above and beyond this, another development raises serious questions for Irish democracy. Two multinationals - Ryanair and Intel - are spending huge sums on the campaign to encourage a Yes vote. That both contributions have been largely politically illiterate and that both companies are in need of European benevolence hardly diminishes one’s concern.

Since when have multinationals thrown their considerable weight and resources into a matter of international and domestic importance in Irish politics? Have we become a European Honduras - have we really reached a point in European democracy where the bosses can tell the workers how to vote?

Who can keep a straight face while listening to Michael O’Leary extol the virtues of Lisbon’s workers’ rights legislation? Indeed, is there not an implied threat to quit Ireland in Intel’s demand for a Yes vote?

Between them, Ryanair and Intel have contributed €700,000 to the Yes campaign, and huge contributions from Europe are also pouring in. According to the Times in London, one lobbyist, Eamonn Bates, sent e-mails to fellow EU lobbying firms seeking donations of up to €30,000 to help a pro-Lisbon campaign.

Another organisation, established by Irish people working in Brussels who want a Yes result, planned to spend €500,000 on advertisements.

By the end, it will actually be possible to calculate accurately how much it cost to overthrow the sovereignty of the people as expressed in the last referendum.

In these depressing days, we have moved from Europeanisation, to some form of Euro-colonisation as those who dare to reject the Euro federalisation agenda are buried under a vast and expensive campaign that has sought to frighten and undermine the electorate.

We need hardly argue at this stage what Lisbon II is about. We now know in our waters that it’s the key to unleashing a European project that, in less than a generation, will once again make this country a tiny and insignificant appendage to a vast global enterprise. Its ambitions are no less imperial than those of previous European generations and, while the language may have changed, the political objectives have not.

This is ultimately about a United States of Europe emerging, eventually, as a significant world power beside the Chinas and the Indias of the future. Its weapons will be unbridled market forces allied with multiculturalism to ensure cheap labour markets, and its ethos will be secular and neo-liberal.

Above all, as we can now see, it eschews democracy - local or national - seeking to create instead a type of ‘euro-panocracy’ in which, not unlike the old Soviet system, the voters are never limited, just the options they can vote for. In a generation or two, Renaissance Europe and all its genius, which so profoundly shaped our European civilisation, will have been swept away.

All it requires now is for poor Paddy to forget the instinct that ‘all politics is local’ and, come Friday, head for the polling station with the price of his soul (what might once have been called the King’s shilling) in his hand. Of course, it won’t be the first time in our history that we could be bought so easily. But at least this will be the very, very last time it will be required.

One of the best articles I've seen written about Lisbon yet and I have to agree with him

wholeheartedly. I posted this because I thought it deserved a discussion of its own. It is very

clear, that we the Irish, are been bullied & bought to pass Lisbon. :mad:

The Volt

Nice Try Tom

roosh

Good article, just read it in the SBP

marco_polo

moondogspot wrote: »

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/euro-federalists-bully-us-and-buy-our-vote-44635.html



One of the best articles I've seen written about Lisbon yet and I have to agree with him

wholeheartedly. I posted this because I thought it deserved a discussion of its own. It is very

clear, that we the Irish, are been bullied & bought to pass Lisbon. :mad:

As he is playing hard and fast with the truth I can see why it would receive your approval.

moondogspot

marco_polo wrote: »

As he is playing hard and fast with the truth I can see why it would receive your approval.

So Tom McGurk is in the bad books now. The yes side never fail to amuse. Anyone can see
that we are been bullied & bought.

Rb

How are we being bullied?

turgon

Any article or person that gives out about the Yes campaign lying, while ignoring the greater amount of lying done by the No campaign, is immediately put into my "ignore" pile.

I wonder what his agenda is?

marco_polo

moondogspot wrote: »

Are you accusing Tom McGurk of lying??:eek:

The article speaks for itself really.

EU enlargement beyond our ability to veto, Intel threatning to leave Ireland,
Self amending blah blah.

All with a nice sprinkling of some race to the bottom garbage SWP garbage.

prinz

As soon as I got to bit about "Euro federalists" I knew he was talking through his ar*e rubbish. Typical, looks like he knows as much about politics as he does about rugby, and that's not saying a lot.


Interesting that he should mention "celebrities" coming out on the yes side for 15 minutes of fame. What his background in European politics?

Kalashnikov_Kid

Tom McGuirk - broadcaster, poet, journalist, divorcee and boozer.

Wonder what Eamo has to say about it all - oh wait we were already blessed with a nugget of his amazing intelect weren't we?

rebelmind

Brilliant article Tom, thank you for your clarity & wisdom.
If their is any don't knows around who still have a scrap of self-respect, please read this & Vote NO, if for nothing more that to tell the Emperor he has no clothes!

moondogspot

prinz wrote: »

As soon as I got to bit about "Euro federalists" I knew he was talking through his ar*e rubbish. Typical, looks like he knows as much about politics as he does about rugby, and that's not saying a lot.

I bet you if he said that the Lisbon Treaty was brilliant, you would be giving him high praise. Tbh I would much prefer to hear his take on things than from some random posters here who know it all.;)

marco_polo

moondogspot wrote: »

I bet you if he said that the Lisbon Treaty was brilliant, you woud be giving him high praise. Tbh I would much prefer to hear his take on things than from some random posters who know it all here.;)

rebelmind wrote: »

Brilliant article Tom, thank you for your clarity & wisdom.
If their is any don't knows around who still have a scrap of self-respect, please read this & Vote NO, if for nothing more that to tell the Emperor he has no clothes!

Could either of you point our the part of the Lisbon Treaty that he is refering to that says we lose our veto on future enlargement?

Rb

OP I notice you've failed to address my question.

How are we being bullied?

Tarobot

moondogspot wrote: »

I bet you if he said that the Lisbon Treaty was brilliant, you would be giving him high praise.

Yes because we would agree with him and his article might be a bit more grounded in reality than it is.

moondogspot wrote: »

Tbh I would much prefer to hear his take on things than from some random posters here who know it all.;)

Er...yes because he's telling you what you want to hear.

marco_polo

Or a source in which Intel either implicitly or explictly threatend to leave Ireland?

rebelmind

marco_polo wrote: »

Or a source in which Intel either implicitly or explictly threatend to leave Ireland?

A source?
This is'nt necessarily a jounalistic question.
The 'source' should be your own street-smarts.
Use your noggin for pity's sake.

Tarobot

rebelmind wrote: »

A source?
This is necessarily a jounalistic question.
The 'source' should be your own street-smarts.
Use your noggin for pity's sake.

Are you serious? 'noggin and 'street-smarts' are now replacing hard facts?

This forum really depresses me sometimes.

Rb

Tarobot wrote: »

Are you serious? 'noggin and 'street-smarts' are now replacing hard facts?

This forum really depresses me sometimes.

If there's one crucial flaw to the entire No side it is the absence of any hard facts.

prinz

From the outset, the Euro federalists were outraged that little Ireland had dared to reject Lisbon.

- Tom McGurk

A federal Europe is a pretty good idea..

- Declan Ganley

In these depressing days, we have moved from Europeanisation, to some form of Euro-colonisation as those who dare to reject the Euro federalisation agenda are buried under a vast and expensive campaign that has sought to frighten and undermine the electorate.

- Tom McGurk

Like the creaking analog telephone systems of earlier decades, Europe’s system of nationally structured political parties has become a legacy system. You can tweak and push the system harder, you can add new parts, but what lies underneath can no longer deliver the performance required of it. The old “analog system” must be discarded: European politics needs to go digital.

- Declan Ganley

This is ultimately about a United States of Europe emerging, eventually, as a significant world power beside the Chinas and the Indias of the future. Its weapons will be unbridled market forces allied with multiculturalism to ensure cheap labour markets, and its ethos will be secular and neo-liberal.

- Tom McGurk

A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world.

- Declan Ganley

Above all, as we can now see, it eschews democracy - local or national - seeking to create instead a type of ‘euro-panocracy’ in which, not unlike the old Soviet system, the voters are never limited, just the options they can vote for.

- Tom McGurk

It is time for the creation of new, truly pan-European political organizations...Similarly, in the absence of mainstream, truly European political parties, the European political scene has become the plaything of special interest groups with no broader European vision. New parties and organizations could address Europe’s needs at the levels where most of the decisions affecting us are, or should be, made: the macro level in Europe, our broader community, and at the most local level within the regions of Europe’s states.

- Declan Ganley

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

Either Tom McGurk has no idea what is in the Treaty or he has no idea why Ganley/Libertas are so copperfastened in their opposition to Lisbon. The very outcomes McGurk fears from Lisbon is what Declan Ganley aspires to. Now, again, if Lisbon would result in what McGurk is saying it will, why would Ganley campaign against it

RealityCheck

Rb wrote: »

If there's one crucial flaw to the entire No side it is the absence of any hard facts.

Thats the flaw of the entire Lisbon debate, Yes and No.

moondogspot

All Tom McGurk did was write an article. It's amazing the amount of raw nerves it has hit.

ilovelamp2000

prinz wrote: »

As soon as I got to bit about "Euro federalists" I knew he was talking through his ar*e rubbish. Typical, looks like he knows as much about politics as he does about rugby, and that's not saying a lot.


Interesting that he should mention "celebrities" coming out on the yes side for 15 minutes of fame. What his background in European politics?

Wow.

This is incredibly myopic.

The Volt

moondogspot wrote: »

All Tom McGurk did was write an article. It's amazing the amount of raw nerves it has hit.

It's amazing the godlike status he's acquired on the no side already

K-9

rebelmind wrote: »

A source?
This is'nt necessarily a jounalistic question.
The 'source' should be your own street-smarts.
Use your noggin for pity's sake.

So Multi Nationals will leave Ireland if there is a No?

So there is economic consequences to voting No?

RealityCheck

prinz wrote: »

Either Tom McGurk has no idea what is in the Treaty or he has no idea why Ganley/Libertas are so copperfastened in their opposition to Lisbon. The very outcomes McGurk fears from Lisbon is what Declan Ganley aspires to. Now, again, if Lisbon would result in what McGurk is saying it will, why would Ganley campaign against it

I think you will find that Ganley and McGurk are two different people with two different opinions and agendas.

Rb

RealityCheck wrote: »

Thats the flaw of the entire Lisbon debate, Yes and No.

No sorry, the Yes side here have presented facts as benefits to voting yes, quoting from the text. See Sink's excellent post for a perfect example.

The No posters here have yet to provide anything of the sort.

Yes, the posters by the Yes side aren't the most factual, however they're a damn sight better than the malicious, disgusting lies that are on the posters of the No side.

Don't even try to equate the two campaigns, overall the Yes side has came out of this like shining beacons of Democracy.

Rb

moondogspot wrote: »

All Tom McGurk did was write an article. It's amazing the amount of raw nerves it has hit.

How are we being bullied?

If you're going to make a statement then at least have some ability to back it up. It's hilarious that you've dodged the question twice already.

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

Declan Ganley vs Tom McGurk:

bravo, best post of the day

prinz

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Wow.
This is incredibly myopic.

How so? Nothing in that article is based in reality.

RealityCheck wrote: »

I think you will find that Ganley and McGurk are two different people with two different opinions and agendas.

Yes they are. But one of them has to be wrong. Ganley wants a United States of Europe and campaigns against Lisbon.... McGurk campaigns against Lisbon because he feels it will result in a United States of Lisbon.... they can't both be right.

sceptre

rebelmind wrote: »

A source?
This is'nt necessarily a jounalistic question.
The 'source' should be your own street-smarts.
Use your noggin for pity's sake.

I'm afraid that counts for precisely nothing in the reality universe. The trouble with street-smarts is that those in the street so seldom appear to have any of them.

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

he feels it will result in a United States of Lisbon

:eek:

RealityCheck

Rb wrote: »

No sorry, the Yes side here have presented facts as benefits to voting yes, quoting from the text. See Sink's excellent post for a perfect example.

The No posters here have yet to provide anything of the sort.

Yes, the posters by the Yes side aren't the most factual, however they're a damn sight better than the malicious, disgusting lies that are on the posters of the No side.

Don't even try to equate the two campaigns, overall the Yes side has came out of this like shining beacons of Democracy.

I meant in general, not specifically boards.ie. I have not had much time to look around here lately so I cant comment much about the debate here. As you might guess I'm at fairly neutral point of view on the treaty.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

:eek:

Great joke there from the man/woman/eurocrat who set up a boards account to make over 1000 posts on the Lisbon treaty in about a month.

MrMatisse

And they say the yes side is trying to intimidate people:rolleyes:

Poor Reality check.

K-9

RealityCheck wrote: »

I think you will find that Ganley and McGurk are two different people with two different opinions and agendas.

Nah, Ganley had one opinion last year and he changed his agenda since, so actually it is Ganley who has two different opinions and agendas.

RealityCheck

prinz wrote: »

How so? Nothing in that article is based in reality.



Yes they are. But one of them has to be wrong. Ganley wants a United States of Europe and campaigns against Lisbon.... McGurk campaigns against Lisbon because he feels it will result in a United States of Lisbon.... they can't both be right.

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Great joke there from the man/woman/eurocrat who set up a boards account to make over 1000 posts on the Lisbon treaty in about a month.

erm i was just pointing out a clear typo and having a laugh

jebus whats your problem :rolleyes:

g5fd6ow0hseima

RealityCheck wrote: »

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

nice post there, hopefully itll clear up a lot for people

RealityCheck

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, Ganley had one opinion last year and he changed his agenda since, so actually it is Ganley who has two different opinions and agendas.

I think you could be right there. His main aim is stopping the european project by whatever means necessary. His opinions are decided by whatever best serves his agenda.

MrMatisse

I think it makes light of the mans arguments.

prinz

RealityCheck wrote: »

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

Or so he says indeed His big problem is that he knows with Lisbon ratified the EU will be a stable force again, and any such move towards a federal United States of Europe will be off the agenda. He wants Europe in turmoil, so he can peddle his pan-European political system, leading towards his USE. McGurk is just a eurosceptic who has obviously been listening to the UKIP for too long. Neither of them are actually arguing on the Treaty itself.

Scofflaw

moondogspot wrote: »

I bet you if he said that the Lisbon Treaty was brilliant, you would be giving him high praise. Tbh I would much prefer to hear his take on things than from some random posters here who know it all.;)

Yet here you are.

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

RealityCheck wrote: »

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

aint that the whole problem with NO campaign?

it consists of a bunch of far left/right groups with diametrically opposed viewpoints on everything?

but somehow they are campaigning against same centrist Treaty

who would have imagined the day when Sinn Fein would be on the same side as UKIP eurosceptics

and then we have wannabe millionaire with dodgy history trying to buy his way into power and fame

you couldn't make it up

/

prinz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you couldn't make it up

Ian Fleming could

moviesrme

Instinct tells me we are being sold a pup here. And yet if we vote NO we will be punished. It's a pity we didn't see the loss of power coming with Maastrict and Nice. Having said this it's impossible to be sure. Maybe it's not as bad as I fear.
I am a supporter of the Zeitgeist movement. I see farmers losing their livelihoods. I see financial crashes and jobs leaving the country willy nilly. Are the bankers shoring up the wealth of the world?

I really don't know what to think! You see trust is required and it is in short supply and has been for years. If I was taking out a mortgage and I wasn't sure I wouldn't proceed. So it seems no is required. I find it impossible to get sure and that's what I need for a Yes.

Tarobot

moviesrme wrote: »

Instinct tells me we are being sold a pup here. And yet if we vote NO we will be punished. It's a pity we didn't see the loss of power coming with Maastrict and Nice. Having said this it's impossible to be sure. Maybe it's not as bad as I fear.
I am a supporter of the Zeitgeist movement. I see farmers losing their livelihoods. I see financial crashes and jobs leaving the country willy nilly. Are the bankers shoring up the wealth of the world?

I really don't know what to think! You see trust is required and it is in short supply and has been for years. If I was taking out a mortgage and I wasn't sure I wouldn't proceed. So it seems no is required. I find it impossible to get sure and that's what I need for a Yes.

But if you're worried about farmers, are you aware that the IFA and the Food and Drinks Industry is pro-Lisbon and 80% of farmers plan to vote Yes?

You don't need to trust Irish politicians, you can read the Treaty yourself! www.lisbonexposed.org or www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

The Volt

Tarobot wrote: »

But if you're worried about farmers, are you aware that the IFA and the Food and Drinks Industry is pro-Lisbon and 80% of farmers plan to vote Yes?

You don't need to trust Irish politicians, you can read the Treaty yourself! www.lisbonexposed.org or www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

Thanks for that Tarobot. I know this has been said a million times but look not to the politicians, look to the many groups like IFA, ICTU etc

moviesrme

Yes Tarobot I know the IFA supports it and thats good. But I wonder are they right. Farming is going downhill and has been for years. Conversely a no vote certainly wont help farmers.

Reading the treaty is possible but not practical. I don't have the time (3 weeks) or the technical skill to tease it out.

My point is essentially trusting our politicians/ euro politicians etc. is absolutely key to this. And I don't.
My final position is the right thing I think to do is vote no but the prudent thing to do is vote yes so that's what I intend to do. I think the yes side will win this time but not by that much.

wicklowlad

moondogspot wrote: »

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/euro-federalists-bully-us-and-buy-our-vote-44635.html



One of the best articles I've seen written about Lisbon yet and I have to agree with him

wholeheartedly. I posted this because I thought it deserved a discussion of its own. It is very

clear, that we the Irish, are been bullied & bought to pass Lisbon. :mad:

The article is factually wrong on some points and shows bias. I also wonder why people say they are bullied?? Turn of the tv - put down the paper or turn the radio off!!! What does bullied mean?? Are we not getting the same amount of garbage from all sides??? and this what's this about being bought - did Ganley's London connection (won't mention his USA friends) pay for the massive advertising the last time?? Mind you we are still awaiting clarity on Libertas funding - Din S/Fein get their funding in the North??

Tarobot

moviesrme wrote: »

Yes Tarobot I know the IFA supports it and thats good. But I wonder are they right. Farming is going downhill and has been for years. Conversely a no vote certainly wont help farmers.

Why do you think they are wrong?

moviesrme wrote: »

Reading the treaty is possible but not practical. I don't have the time (3 weeks) or the technical skill to tease it out.

www.lisbontreaty2009.ie has a 30 minute guide to Lisbon.

moviesrme wrote: »

My point is essentially trusting our politicians/ euro politicians etc. is absolutely key to this. And I don't.

Why is trusting our politicians key? They will still be in power if we vote No.

moviesrme wrote: »

My final position is the right thing I think to do is vote no but the prudent thing to do is vote yes so that's what I intend to do. I think the yes side will win this time but not by that much.

Well I'm glad to hear you're planning on voting yes but I'd rather you were happy about it! Please continue to reply and we might be able to sort out a few issues.