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

rebelmind

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, I'm with you there.

How is this threatened in Lisbon?

Herebe the truth, & sometimes it hurts, so prepare yourself -

The soon to be defeated Lisbon Treaty, would change the voting balance in the EU in favour of the bigger countries. The German vote would go up from 8.4 to 16.7 % & the British from 8.4 to 12.3 %. The Irish vote would drop from 2 to 0.8 %.
The Revision Procedure would allow the Heads of State to change the Treaty without any further referenda with the people. The Taoiseach would be given the powers to decide. (Art. 48.7)

Those are the facts of the matter.
In my humble, how can any sane individual possibly trust the current or future Taoiseach/Government not to buckle under EU pressure, regardles of the loss for Ireland?
Witness the cat & mouse game with the so-called 'guarantees'?
Witness the sell-out of Corrib Gas & Oil reserves to Shell.

I could go on.

The issues here are moral as well as legal & the complete collapse of trust in the political establishment is what will ultimately win the day for the NO side.

K-9

rebelmind wrote: »

Herebe the truth, & sometimes it hurts, so prepare yourself -

The soon to be defeated Lisbon Treaty, would change the voting balance in the EU in favour of the bigger countries. The German vote would go up from 8.4 to 16.7 % & the British from 8.4 to 12.3 %. The Irish vote would drop from 2 to 0.8 %.
The Revision Procedure would allow the Heads of State to change the Treaty without any further referenda with the people. The Taoiseach would be given the powers to decide. (Art. 48.7)

Those are the facts of the matter.
In my humble, how can any sane individual possibly trust the current or future Taoiseach/Government not to buckle under EU pressure, regardles of the loss for Ireland?
Witness the cat & mouse game with the so-called 'guarantees'?
Witness the sell-out of Corrib Gas & Oil reserves to Shell.

I could go on.

The issues here are moral as well as legal & the complete collapse of trust in the political establishment is what will ultimately win the day for the NO side.

Even if that was true, how does that affect taxation?

I'm interested here.

View

rebelmind wrote: »

I could go on.

And no doubt you will - irrespective of the amount of times it has been pointed out that your claims are contradicted by the text of the treaty itself.

Tarobot

rebelmind wrote: »

ROFL !!!
ok, Foreigh Direct Investment is enticed by the IDA et al, to come to Ireland to vote in our referenda & has nothing to do with corporate tax.
Big corporates are just soo passionate about democracy, especially Irelands democracy, that they are simply falling over one another to base themselves here.
Whats more, the Polish equivalent of the IDA, invited DEll to Lodz, 'cos Dell wanna vote on Polish elections.

I will try again. You wrote:

the fact remains that as long as Ireland maintains control of Corportate tax multi-nationals will stay

Your response does not answer my request for you to support your argument that corporation tax is the ONLY reason MNs will stay in Ireland.

rebelmind wrote: »

The soon to be defeated Lisbon Treaty, would change the voting balance in the EU in favour of the bigger countries. The German vote would go up from 8.4 to 16.7 % & the British from 8.4 to 12.3 %. The Irish vote would drop from 2 to 0.8 %.

Your analysis is incorrect because you (oh so conveniently) ignore the other half of the decision making process. Under Double Majority, the first step requires 55% of the member states to be in agreement. At this stage, Ireland (population 4.5m) will have the same vote as Germany (population 82m).

Moreover, it will take only 4 member states to block a proposal, as opposed to under Nice where there is no blocking mechanism.

rebelmind wrote: »

The Revision Procedure would allow the Heads of State to change the Treaty without any further referenda with the people. The Taoiseach would be given the powers to decide. (Art. 48.7)

Again, incorrect through incompleteness. The passerrelle clause you're referring to requires the agreement of:
- the Taoiseach
- the government
- the Dail
- the Seanad
It will also require the same of all other 26 member states.

Most importantly, it can only be used to move issues from unanimity to QMV (not including defence or transfer of competences) and any changes affecting the Irish constitution will still require a referendum.

rebelmind wrote: »

Those are the facts of the matter.

They are not. The rest of your post has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty and is a feeble attempt to paint the referendum as a general election.

OldJay

Rb wrote: »

How are we being bullied?

No answer for the simple reason being that we are not being bullied. If nobody had a mind of their own then they would be bullied as they'd just do what they're told. There wouldn't be a choice on the ballot paper for a start.

As it happens, any sane person can read through what I see as sentimental populistic bilge in that article and make their own bloody mind up.
What would McGurk know that I don't already?
Zip .
Therefore I can safely disagree with what he wrote (for reasons outlined in various other posts on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty).

P. Breathnach

Tarobot wrote: »

... Again, incorrect through incompleteness. The passerrelle clause you're referring to requires the agreement of:
- the Taoiseach
- the government
- the Dail
- the Seanad
It will also require the same of all other 26 member states.

Most importantly, it can only be used to move issues from unanimity to QMV (not including defence or transfer of competences) and any changes affecting the Irish constitution will still require a referendum...

It might further be noted that this amendment procedure is entirely in accord with our present law, and requires no constitutional change. There is no requirement to hold a referendum on any treaty (EU or other) that does not involve sovereignty issues.

[The Lisbon-related guarantees are international treaties: we didn't need referendums for them -- just as well, because Cóir might have been out campaigning against them.]

Sabre0001

I always think it's funny when I see arguments saying that voters are being "frightened" or "bullied" onto the Yes side. The main arguments I have heard from "No" are ones of minimum wage that couldn't buy bread, "dey turk ar jarbs", abortions for all and so on.

The facts are readily available for people to make up their own minds...

MrMatisse

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I always think it's funny when I see arguments saying that voters are being "frightened" or "bullied" onto the Yes side. The main arguments I have heard from "No" are ones of minimum wage that couldn't buy bread, "dey turk ar jarbs", abortions for all and so on.

The facts are readily available for people to make up their own minds...

Arrogant and dismissive posts like that dont help the argument.

Using a mock dublin accent and making silly dismissive adjustments only hurt your argument. THe many people who read this thread but dont post would not be amused.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Arrogant and dismissive posts like that dont help the argument.

Using a mock dublin accent and making silly dismissive adjustments only hurt your argument. THe many people who read this thread but dont post would not be amused.

So how do you feel about

UKIP sending racist leaflets to Irish homes? with the image of Turkey being an obvious racist reference at the Turks

hypocrite

/

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Using a mock dublin accent

It's not a mock Dublin accent, it's a south park reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks

Various unions of local blue-collar workers soon hold a meeting to discuss their concern regarding the immigrants. The foreman, construction worker Darryl Withers, complains that they have "worked long and hard" to get their pay high enough to "make a decent living," but now are being outcompeted by the time-immigrants who are willing to work for much lower wages. Other workers voice their own complaints, each time finishing off with an exclamation of "Dey took our jobs!" The other men agree and repeat and mangle this slogan throughout the episode (it is also occasionally referenced in future episodes). The chants decline to sound like the now infamous "Dey tuk er jeobs!" chant. It eventually becomes completely unintelligible, including the example "Durka Dur!"

rebelmind

Tarobot wrote: »

Your response does not answer my request for you to support your argument that corporation tax is the ONLY reason MNs will stay in Ireland.


.

Multi-nationals like Intel are based here, primarily because the Corporate Tax base is so low. There are, of course, other reasons, ie. young, educated, English-speaking workforce etc etc.
However, it seems, throwing millions of bucks at the Irish electorate has become another one & this is the issue here.
They have no business, except self-interest, in doing so & they should keep their coked-up noses out of our elections.

I will answer your other points in due course.

Sam Vimes

rebelmind wrote: »

Multi-nationals like Intel are based here, primarily because the Corporate Tax base is so low. There are, of course, other reasons, ie. young, educated, English-speaking workforce etc etc.
However, it seems, throwing millions of bucks at the Irish electorate has become another one & this is the issue here.
They have no business, except self-interest, in doing so & they should keep their coked-up noses out of our elections.

I will answer your other points in due course.

And another major reason was access to the common European market.

Of course their interest is self-interest, it just so happens that their interests are best served by an improvement in the Irish economy.

Do you also want all the unelected people and groups on the no side to "keep their coked-up noses out of our elections."

This isn't an election btw

OldJay

rebelmind wrote: »

They have no business, except self-interest, in doing so & they should keep their coked-up noses out of our elections

Everyone has self-interest.
As for the italicised quote above: ffs :rolleyes:

What a morbid bunch of begrudgers people in this country can be.

rebelmind

Justind wrote: »

Everyone has self-interest.
As for the italicised quote above: ffs :rolleyes:

What a morbid bunch of begrudgers people in this country can be.

Perhaps a quote from McGurks article may assist -

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?

PopeBuckfastXVI

rebelmind wrote: »

Perhaps a quote from McGurks article may assist -

mmm, rich in hyperbole...

marco_polo

rebelmind wrote: »

Perhaps a quote from McGurks article may assist -

The can reccomend a yes vote to their employees all they want, much like other organisations can and do to their members, but the fact that the ballot is private means that this particular conspiracy theory is holed below the waterline.

rebelmind

marco_polo wrote: »

The can reccomend a yes vote to their employees all they want, much like other organisations can and do to their members.

Yes they can.
They can also, demote &/or eventually sack an employee who dares campaign for a no vote publicly.
There is an implicit threat from Intel/Ryanair both to the Irish electorate & their employees & to argue otherwise is simply dishonest.
Mr McGurk is quite correct in comparing this to Honduras.

marco_polo wrote: »

this particular conspiracy theory is holed below the waterline.

Typical mud-sling, it is'nt a theory, if its reality

Rb

rebelmind wrote: »

Typical mud-sling, it is'nt a theory, if its reality

Proof please.

marco_polo

rebelmind wrote: »

Yes they can.
They can also, demote &/or eventually sack an employee who dares campaign for a no vote publicly.
There is an implicit threat from Intel/Ryanair both to the Irish electorate & their employees & to argue otherwise is simply dishonest.
Mr McGurk is quite correct in comparing this to Honduras.



Typical mud-sling, it is'nt a theory, if its reality

We actually have quite comprehensive legislation in the area of Employee rights so no they couldn't. And haven't threatened implicitly or explicitly to do anything of the sort.

This is actually getting pathetic at this stage.

rebelmind

marco_polo wrote: »

We actually have quite comprehensive legislation in the area of Employee rights so no they couldn't. And haven't threatened implicitly or explicitly to do anything of the sort.

This is actually getting pathetic at this stage.

Tut tut !
Go work in a major corporate campaigning for a Yes vote in a referendum.
Go stand over the water-cooler & actively canvas your fellow workers to vote NO in the same referendum & see what happens to you.
Grow up, you are pathetic in your naiveity.

sceptre

rebelmind wrote: »

their coked-up noses

The what now?

It'd be less libellous if you said "snouts in the trough". As well as being a subtle Animal Farm reference for the children who like the cartoon. Also looks less silly.

Just a thought. If you have to.

Tarobot

rebelmind wrote: »

Multi-nationals like Intel are based here, primarily because the Corporate Tax base is so low. There are, of course, other reasons, ie. young, educated, English-speaking workforce etc etc.
However, it seems, throwing millions of bucks at the Irish electorate has become another one & this is the issue here.
They have no business, except self-interest, in doing so & they should keep their coked-up noses out of our elections.

I agree that they should not have become involved in the campaign but then again, nor should Coir or Libertas.

If Lisbon is so bad for our economy, why are the following groups in favour of Lisbon:
-IBEC
-ISME
-90% of economists
-the IFA
-the Irish Food and Drinks Industry
-the Irish Exporters Association (80% of our wealth comes from exports)

I don't think that voting No will mean the destruction of our economy but I think that voting Yes will create an environment more conducive to creating jobs and attracting investment. And goodwill is always important in negotiations, whether you like it or not.

rebelmind wrote: »

I will answer your other points in due course.

I can't wait.

moondogspot

One things for sure. McGurk tells it just like it is regarding the current Lisbon scenario. I just

hope that some people aren't going to vote Yes just because our corrupt politicians, bankers,

developers etc. told them so.

marco_polo

moondogspot wrote: »

One things for sure. McGurk tells it just like it is regarding the current Lisbon scenario. I just

hope that some people aren't going to vote Yes just because our corrupt politicians, bankers,

developers etc. told them so.

Ah good you're back. You forgot to answer my question yesterday.

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

PopeBuckfastXVI

moondogspot wrote: »

One things for sure. McGurk tells it just like it is regarding the current Lisbon scenario. I just

hope that some people aren't going to vote Yes just because our corrupt politicians, bankers,

developers etc. told them so.

hope that some people aren't going to vote No just because our corrupt politicians, bankers, developers etc. told them vote Yes.

The Volt

moondogspot wrote: »

One things for sure. McGurk tells it just like it is regarding the current Lisbon scenario.

McGurk for Taoiseach!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Rb

Rebelmind please provide some proof of your allegations of employers forcing people to vote yes, or else retract your statement.

CiDeRmAn

Once again, hope people don't use their vote to protest against an unpopular government.
It is telling that every major party in the Dail, bar Sin Fein who themselves have a history of anti EEC/EU rhetoric, are advocating a Yes vote, together with the business community, both national and multinational, not to mention the IFA.
So, why on earth, if the issues with the Lisbon document are so manifold and obvious are there not more established public representitives, representitives with mandates from voters, businesses, farmers etc. not out campaigning for a No vote?
Surely this is telling?

I cannot take Libertas and Mr Ganley seriously, too many links to other peoples money for my taste, a man out against EU interference with Irish neutrality is a bit hard to believe given his own links to US military money, as chairman of Rivada Networks he has contracts worth over $240 million with the US military, not to mention a company that has one of the architects of the US war on terror on it's books, former military chief of staff to George W Bush, Richard Myers.

The No side of the arguement seems to be populated by contrary arguements, fear mongering and playing religious cards, not to mention funding secrecy.

rebelmind

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Once again, hope people don't use their vote to protest against an unpopular government.

They will, which is why it will be defeated.

It is telling that every major party in the Dail, bar Sin Fein who themselves have a history of anti EEC/EU rhetoric, are advocating a Yes vote, together with the business community, both national and multinational, not to mention the IFA.

They re self-serving careerists, for the most part, singing for their supper.
Plus ca change ...

So, why on earth, if the issues with the Lisbon document are so manifold and obvious are there not more established public representitives, representitives with mandates from voters, businesses, farmers etc. not out campaigning for a No vote?
Surely this is telling?

Whats telling is that the so-called public reps have proven themselves contemptuous of the Irish electorate by campaigning against the last vote.

wicklowlad

rebelmind wrote: »

They will, which is why it will be defeated.



They re self-serving careerists, for the most part, singing for their supper.
Plus ca change ...



Whats telling is that the so-called public reps have proven themselves contemptuous of the Irish electorate by campaigning against the last vote.

It is noted that you only mention public reps - what about all the other promoters of the yes vote are they contemptous?? In any case it certainly looks like you trive on conspiracy theories and everybody on the yes side have an ulterior motive while the no side are all saviours of the world. A waste of time really.