The Hard Left and the "No" Campaign

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daftendirekt

It's a very good question. I've often wondered myself, what people like Joe Higgins are actually hoping to achieve with a No vote.

Since the EU has been the driving force behind workers' rights in Ireland, and since presumably, he realises Lisbon doesn't change this (with him having to deliberately misquote the text to support his points), from a socialist perspective, what does Ireland have to gain from rejecting Lisbon?

ei.sdraob

and why are they opposed to the Charter of Human Rights ?

i can understand far rightwingers being up in knots, but being slightly off center left leaning myself im puzzled

and then theres the whole privatization business?

maybe someone can explain so we can have a civilized debate?

|

aftermn

You should have received your polling information card this morning.
It outlines the actual wording of the constitutional amendment, whatever about the Treaty.

Can I draw your attention to section (a) subsection 6.

This appears to me to mean that our constitution will, if the yes side wins, be subordinate to 'laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted' by the new EU.

'No provision of this constitution.......................... prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said EU............. from having the force of law in the state.'

Will this be our last constitutional referendum?

meglome

Not to parrot what the others have already said but I really don't get it either.
I didn't agree with Joe Higgins on many things but the lies he's told in this campaign have really pee'd me off. My girlfriend gave him a good preference in the Europeans but she's so disgusted she's never going to vote for him again.

Dinner

aftermn wrote: »

'No provision of this constitution.......................... prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said EU............. from having the force of law in the state.'

Will this be our last constitutional referendum?

Eh...no, that passage has been in our Constitution since 1973 and it hasn't stopped us having one since then. It's just being slightly amended in this referendum and it won't be our last referendum.

Scofflaw

aftermn wrote: »

You should have received your polling information card this morning.
It outlines the actual wording of the constitutional amendment, whatever about the Treaty.

Can I draw your attention to section (a) subsection 6.

This appears to me to mean that our constitution will, if the yes side wins, be subordinate to 'laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted' by the new EU.

'No provision of this constitution.......................... prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said EU............. from having the force of law in the state.'

Will this be our last constitutional referendum?

Do I need to sticky our Constitution in the Forum? That part of the amendment is no more than an update of the existing article in Bunreacht:

Bunreacht wrote:

29.4.10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

aftermn wrote: »

You should have received your polling information card this morning.
It outlines the actual wording of the constitutional amendment, whatever about the Treaty.

Can I draw your attention to section (a) subsection 6.

This appears to me to mean that our constitution will, if the yes side wins, be subordinate to 'laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted' by the new EU.

'No provision of this constitution.......................... prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said EU............. from having the force of law in the state.'

Will this be our last constitutional referendum?

beside being offtopic (why not start own thread?)

you are also wrong

Ireland has already been subject to EU law in certain areas since 1973

other posters can describe this more eloquently

edit: Scofflaw beat me to it...

/

Daftendirekt

aftermn wrote: »

You should have received your polling information card this morning.
It outlines the actual wording of the constitutional amendment, whatever about the Treaty.

Can I draw your attention to section (a) subsection 6.

This appears to me to mean that our constitution will, if the yes side wins, be subordinate to 'laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted' by the new EU.

'No provision of this constitution.......................... prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said EU............. from having the force of law in the state.'

Will this be our last constitutional referendum?

So, I take it this also abolishes our need for referenda then:

The Constitution of Ireland wrote:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Ironic, considering we're about to have a referendum to amend this section.

PopeBuckfastXVI

aftermn wrote: »

You should have received your polling information card this morning.
It outlines the actual wording of the constitutional amendment, whatever about the Treaty.

Can I draw your attention to section (a) subsection 6.

This appears to me to mean that our constitution will, if the yes side wins, be subordinate to 'laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted' by the new EU.

'No provision of this constitution.......................... prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said EU............. from having the force of law in the state.'

Will this be our last constitutional referendum?

No.

It won't even be our last constitutional referendum on EU matters.

You might be interested in reading the current article 29.4.10° of the constitution:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

Look familiar?


Edit: Hive Mind...

Daftendirekt

Since that's the fifth time in under twenty minutes the argument about EU law taking precedence over Irish law for the first time has been refuted, can we safely assume people will stop making this claim?

floydmoon1

But Coir/Libertas would be see as Far Right so what does that mean.

Scofflaw

floydmoon1 wrote: »

But Coir/Libertas would be see as Far Right so what does that mean.

That's the paradox. The socialists oppose it because it's "neo-liberal", the neo-liberals oppose it because it's "socialist". It may just be centrist, and those attitudes entirely the result of the perspective of the groups involved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

floydmoon1 wrote: »

But Coir/Libertas would be see as Far Right so what does that mean.

it means we have a weird contradicting bunch, as Scofflaw has put it earlier today of:

"far left, far right and far off parties campaigning for a NO"

damn cant find his post to link to

/

Daftendirekt

floydmoon1 wrote: »

But Coir/Libertas would be see as Far Right so what does that mean.

Would they?

Nobody seems to have any idea what political position Libertas represent, and while Cóir are clearly right-wing in the fascist sense of the word, I believe Donegalfella meant left-wing in a more economic sense.

Edit: Scofflaw also makes a good point, although I'm not entirely sure Libertas and Cóir could be considered neo-liberal groups

ei.sdraob

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Would they?

Nobody seems to have any idea what political position Libertas represent, and while Cóir are clearly right-wing in the fascist sense of the word, I believe Donegalfella meant left-wing in a more economic sense.

UKIP would also be in the right wing

as for Libertas since they dont have policies published (after all this time!) and we can only go on their statements its safe to presume they are right wing


/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i think what is happening here (after seeing the debates)

is that Lisbon gives an opportunity for some to be seen going against the grain (even if it means contradicting own policies)

and gives the likes of Joe airtime which his party just wouldn't get normally


/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A harsh analysis - I prefer the view that a real hard-left party opposes anything that maintains the current economic model (because it's all supposed to be torn down in the revolution and replaced by the glorious workers' confraternity), and particularly anything which involves an element of workers' rights or socially progressive legislation, because fewer workers' rights improves the chances of "the revolution".

The free publicity is just a bonus...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Volt

Hard left/right parties are out for their own views, unwilling to compromise and f*ck eveyone else in their eyes.

hatrickpatrick

Well I'm left wing myself and I oppose because I favour more direct democracy instead of less. Many 'left wing" organizations are about putting power directly into the hands of the people instead of the middlemen so that might be why they oppose. I'm actually not a socialist but I seem to support many campaigns which the left support (environmentalism, anti war, pro Palestine, anti globalization and Western hegemony, anti government overriding the will of the people, etc)

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I'm left wing myself and I oppose because I favour more direct democracy instead of less. Many 'left wing" organizations are about putting power directly into the hands of the people instead of the middlemen so that might be why they oppose. I'm actually not a socialist but I seem to support many campaigns which the left support (environmentalism, anti war, pro Palestine, anti globalization and Western hegemony, anti government overriding the will of the people, etc)

I support:
Environmentalism - Lisbon makes fighting climate change a binding principle of the Union
Anti-War - Lisbon allows a collective foreign policy, which will allow us to be taken seriously when we speak out against adventurist interventions and wars of the larger power blocks.
Palestine - See above on collective foreign policy
Ending American Hegemony - see above on collective foreign policy

Globalization? I'm not fussed, give the people what they want, even if I disagree that every high street should look the same, not much one way or another in Lisbon about it though.

Government overriding the will of the people? Hard to disagree. Not much one way or another in Lisbon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I thought it was only in the US that everyone on the left is labelled a communist? Are you necessarily an anarcho capitalist just because you support the free market?

hatrickpatrick

Also could I just point out that I didn't mention "American hegemony" but "Western hegemony". I wouldn't like to see Europe becoming a superpower either to be quite honest, I think the very idea of a superpower confers far too much responsibility on one entity. No superpower in history has been even almost responsible enough with the power.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also could I just point out that I didn't mention "American hegemony" but "Western hegemony". I wouldn't like to see Europe becoming a superpower either to be quite honest, I think the very idea of a superpower confers far too much responsibility on one entity. No superpower in history has been even almost responsible enough with the power.

Would you prefer it if the world agenda was dictated by Russia, China and the USA? Who would listen to you then? How wide would the democratic deficit be?

The EU has been, historically, and overwhelmingly beneficial actor in world affairs, championing human and employment rights along with environmental care at all times. Third party countries clean up their act just to get a slice of the market, if for no other reason. There's no reason to think this will change.

The more 'powers' even if they're only economic, the less any one of them can be a 'super' power.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anonymous_joe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Attention.

Pandering to supporters who distrust foddiners.

turgon

Its an interesting question, for sure, but in my opinion the answer does not merely apply to hard-Left groups but also to every other group pushing for a No, such as Coir and Libertas. The only group who's position is perhaps remotely understandable is UKIP, and they're not even in Ireland.

I think too that the answer to the question is not limited to No campaign groups, but also individual No campaigners and No voters. What makes one go against the Lisbon Treaty? Well, certainly not the Treaty itself.

As I discussed on another thread before said thread was hijacked, I think there is some part of the human mentality - some component of the human psyche - that makes being on the No side attractive. I think its that simple. Because we all know that No-siders have the most subjective reading of the Treaty imaginable. They are notorious for conveniently leaving out the end of sentences - such as in line "with each members states constitutional requirements" and "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States." The only thing we can draw from this selective reading is that they wanted to find reasons to vote No. Which means they wanted to vote No before they read the Treaty.

As a former No voter I can see this clearly. I was subconsciously attracted to being a No-sider, so I had my subjective reading of the Treaty. The question is why did I subconsciously want to vote No? Its a question I have been mulling over for the last few weeks. Why do they want to vote No? Any psychologists among us?

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Credibility.

Ganley went shot from unknown to national fame -- if that's the right word -- within a few months last year on foot of his performance in Lisbon 1. He was seen, arguably correctly, as a man who could influence elections. If the no-side win Lisbon II, then they'll believe and they'll claim that they delivered the verdict, and will demand the respect that goes with such influence. For political sideliners like SF, Higgins and McKenna, anything which could provide them with the illusion of influence is worth a punt, regardless of the rights and the wrongs of the issue.

For anybody familiar with Adam Curtis's excellent The Power of Nightmares, the logic is similar to what appears to have legitimized the USA's neocons to themselves, and the Taleban to themselves following the defeat of Russia in Afghanistan -- an event which would probably have happened anyway is mistakenly assumed to mean that the people fighting to make it happen, actually did make it happen.

With UKIP, the motivation is easier to figure out -- they're just trying to stick an umbrella in between the spokes of the EU's bicycle because it's easy and it plays well with the blue-rinse brigade.

robindch

turgon wrote: »

The question is why did I subconsciously want to vote No? Its a question I have been mulling over for the last few weeks. Why do they want to vote No?

The default position of many voters is to keep the status quo because many people fear change.

You can see this in the no-side's advertizing efforts, most of which are intended, unashamedly, to scare the bejesus out people, regardless of whether the ludicrous situations and interpretations they propose are actually real.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Its an interesting question, for sure, but in my opinion the answer does not merely apply to hard-Left groups but also to every other group pushing for a No, such as Coir and Libertas. The only group who's position is perhaps remotely understandable is UKIP, and they're not even in Ireland.

I think too that the answer to the question is not limited to No campaign groups, but also individual No campaigners and No voters. What makes one go against the Lisbon Treaty? Well, certainly not the Treaty itself.

As I discussed on another thread before said thread was hijacked, I think there is some part of the human mentality - some component of the human psyche - that makes being on the No side attractive. I think its that simple. Because we all know that No-siders have the most subjective reading of the Treaty imaginable. They are notorious for conveniently leaving out the end of sentences - such as in line "with each members states constitutional requirements" and "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States." The only thing we can draw from this selective reading is that they wanted to find reasons to vote No. Which means they wanted to vote No before they read the Treaty.

As a former No voter I can see this clearly. I was subconsciously attracted to being a No-sider, so I had my subjective reading of the Treaty. The question is why did I subconsciously want to vote No? Its a question I have been mulling over for the last few weeks. Why do they want to vote No? Any psychologists among us?

As far as I know, it's the general case - people decide, then seek reasons to back up their decision. Also, legal text seems to be read by most people not as any kind of narrative, but through a process of island-hopping from one comprehensible phrase to another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

electrogrimey

robindch wrote: »

Credibility.
For political sideliners like SF, Higgins and McKenna, anything which could provide them with the illusion of influence is worth a punt, regardless of the rights and the wrongs of the issue.

Do you really believe this? The smaller parties exist because of their views, which appeal to the smaller section of voters who share their views. If they were this indifferent to their own views they wouldn't exist.

In reply to the OP, I think the smaller parties all have reasons to be against the treaty, that they are not just looking for attention. One big one is simply to disagree with FG/FF, Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party are as far as I know against the treaty as they believe it will have adverse effects on workers, more immigration, less power over our own laws (minimum wage etc.), and to protect workers' rights across Europe (I have heard the claim that employers could, under the treaty, employ a foreign worker in, say Ireland, at the minimum wage of their home country, which could be below our minimum wage, can anyone clarify this?) Then there's the racist thing against Turkey etc, which explains the hard-right parties.

Just so you know, I am voting yes, I just like to understand both sides.

Scofflaw

electrogrimey wrote: »

Do you really believe this? The smaller parties exist because of their views, which appeal to the smaller section of voters who share their views. If they were this indifferent to their own views they wouldn't exist.

In reply to the OP, I think the smaller parties all have reasons to be against the treaty, that they are not just looking for attention. One big one is simply to disagree with FG/FF, Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party are as far as I know against the treaty as they believe it will have adverse effects on workers, more immigration, less power over our own laws (minimum wage etc.), and to protect workers' rights across Europe (I have heard the claim that employers could, under the treaty, employ a foreign worker in, say Ireland, at the minimum wage of their home country, which could be below our minimum wage, can anyone clarify this?) Then there's the racist thing against Turkey etc, which explains the hard-right parties.

Just so you know, I am voting yes, I just like to understand both sides.

The minimum wage question is easily clarified - the EU has no role in setting minimum wages in the member states. The Laval judgement, which is what is often referenced here, applied in Sweden only because Sweden had neither a legal minimum wage nor a general collective minimum wage agreement that covered all workers. No such judgement would be possible in Ireland, which has a legally binding minimum wage. You cannot employ anyone in Ireland at less than the legal minimum wage. People do break the law, of course, but funnily enough laws don't stop that sort of thing.

As to protecting workers' rights - perhaps it's rude to mention it, but the EU has provided rather a lot more in protective legislation for workers' rights than has been achieved by the whole Irish hard left.

Possibly, of course, they're jealous, now I think of it.

cordially,
scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I know, it's the general case - people decide, then seek reasons to back up their decision. Also, legal text seems to be read by most people not as any kind of narrative, but through a process of island-hopping from one comprehensible phrase to another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm pro-EU but really wasn't sure about the treaty. When I checked and read up on the treaty I quickly realised I didn't have too much of an issue with it. More than that I generally liked it. However if I read it and found things I had a big issue with, pro-EU or not, I would be voting No. Some people seem to be able to happily steam ahead even after they are shown to be wrong. Do some people have so little integrity that they can't hold their hand up and say they were misinformed? Is winning more important than the good of the country?

electrogrimey wrote: »

In reply to the OP, I think the smaller parties all have reasons to be against the treaty, that they are not just looking for attention. One big one is simply to disagree with FG/FF, Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party are as far as I know against the treaty as they believe it will have adverse effects on workers, more immigration, less power over our own laws (minimum wage etc.), and to protect workers' rights across Europe (I have heard the claim that employers could, under the treaty, employ a foreign worker in, say Ireland, at the minimum wage of their home country, which could be below our minimum wage, can anyone clarify this?) Then there's the racist thing against Turkey etc, which explains the hard-right parties.

Just so you know, I am voting yes, I just like to understand both sides.

I've never agreed with Joe Higgins but I had some respect for the man. But his party has stooped to downright lying to try to win this campaign so any respect I had for him is long gone. I have no great intellectual brilliance or any political experience and it was no trouble for me to figure out what they were saying was incorrect. If I can do that then I feel safe in my assumption that they are under no illusion they are lying.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly, of course, they're jealous, now I think of it.

cordially,
scofflaw

I really have wondered about this. Do the EU make the socialists look bad by actually bringing in proper workers rights. While the socialists have no hope of getting in to government to do that.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I'm pro-EU but really wasn't sure about the treaty. When I checked and read up on the treaty I quickly realised I didn't have too much of an issue with it. More than that I generally liked it. However if I read it and found things I had a big issue with, pro-EU or not, I would be voting No. Some people seem to be able to happily steam ahead even after they are shown to be wrong. Do some people have so little integrity that they can't hold their hand up and say they were misinformed? Is winning more important than the good of the country?

Again, I think that's very human. Most people, having decided, and then sought justification, are not going to change their position unless they have an emotional 'conversion'. In turn, most people really have no idea what legal text means - it bores, flusters, and confuses them. When legal text is aimed "at them", in the sense of "you'll be signing this", many people are suspicious and fearful of it.

The problem, in one sense, is that legal language is like chess played with quantum-level chess pieces on a board made of symbolic linkages. In order to win at chess, you need to be able to look ahead to see the implications of a move. With quantum-level objects, you need to understand that they haven't got a position so much as a probability distribution of positions. In order to get ahead in quantum chess, you need to understand that your rook is probably on b3, but may possibly be on c2 - and you also need to know why b3 and c2 are symbolically linked, and thus next to each other.

Most people, quite reasonably, get as far as the idea that law has a chain of consequences, and that the interpretation of a word can vary, and stop about there. From there, it's an easy step to the idea that a legal text might mean anything, and that the real purpose of legal jargon is to baffle the uninitiated.

Of course, the more you get used to the law in a given field, the more obvious it becomes that the probability space of interpretation is quite restricted - partly by precedent, and strongly by the need for internal consistency. However, the former assumes knowledge of the legal precedent, and the latter assumes that you're personally capable of understanding and applying consistency. Since people are obviously capable of holding contradictory positions simultaneously, the latter is by no means a given - indeed, some people seem to suffer very little from cognitive dissonance, while others react to it by entrenching their positions as articles of faith. The former should be capable of simultaneously defending at length entirely contradictory claims, while the latter should either react abusively when their claims are challenged, or apparently withdraw them, only to reiterate them once the challenge is passed.

ramblingly,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since people are obviously capable of holding contradictory positions simultaneously, the latter is by no means a given - indeed, some people seem to suffer very little from cognitive dissonance, while others react to it by entrenching their positions as articles of faith. The former should be capable of simultaneously defending at length entirely contradictory claims, while the latter should either react abusively when their claims are challenged, or apparently withdraw them, only to reiterate them once the challenge is passed.

ramblingly,
Scofflaw

I think it was ei.sdraob who likened it to discussing God with creationists.

The thing I'm most 'impressed' with is the posters who are shown using verifiable information to be wrong who then wait a couple of days and say the exact same things, and just keep doing it. Imagine having a real life face-to-face discussion with these guys, it'd be horrible.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I think it was ei.sdraob who likened it to discussing God with creationists.

The thing I'm most 'impressed' with is the posters who are shown using verifiable information to be wrong who then wait a couple of days and say the exact same things, and just keep doing it. Imagine having a real life face-to-face discussion with these guys, it'd be horrible.

I'd rather play the quantum chess, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw