Lisbon Treaty (2 Viewers)

[simp]

Good Vincent Brown piece in yesterday's SB Post - "Neither side deserves electoral success on Lisbon"
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/w...qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.1.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

Also good recent piece in the Economist:-
http://www.economist.com/world/euro...ory_id=11328647&CFID=6236614&CFTOKEN=98111086

 

[drkdrk]

Why i'm voting Yes

http://sunlituplands.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-catholic-support-treaty-of-lisbon.html

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,sans-serif]Quote:
[/FONT]A spectre is haunting Europe—it threatens you, the Christian future of your family, of Ireland, and of the Continent. It is a European Union without God and without moral principles.

• The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies.
  We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!

Europe was built by the Greeks and the Romans. Pagans.

• The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!

This amounts to a regection of the Charter of Human Rights and in it's place the Bible.

• The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!

The christian version of innocent is strange. Stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives.
As a side note, according to the bible, original sin deems all humans guilty from birth and presumably even before birth

• The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!

Children should not be indoctrinated into the faith that their parents hold. They should be given the freedom choose
As per Richard Dawkins

• The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?

The above passege speaks for itself. surely anti-discrimination is a good thing.​

 

[hugh]

they do - it's the law. it's just that it's in really really small writing.

I'm pretty sure quite a few of them don't. For example, the monkey one and the "Don't Throw Away Your Freedom Didn't Your Forefathers Die For Ireland" one. By the way, who is responsible for that? There's one in Phibsboro that really annoys me because it's blocking the view of a traffic light. I want to ring them up and give out ...

I did this last week because some idiot had placed a Vote YES poster right in front of a pedestrian light in Rialto. I rang 'em up and gave them some abuse and lo and behold it was taken down that evening ....

 

[Unicron]

the "Don't Throw Away Your Freedom Didn't Your Forefathers Die For Ireland" one.

That's quite a dodgy organisation called saveireland I think.

 

[potlatch]

I flicked through The Hibernian magazine last night. Its subtitle is 'For Faith, Family and Country'. Ganley's got his big mug on the cover convincing everyone Lisbon'll let all the lepers and apostates destroy our fair Isle. It's got some mad dodgy articles in it. MAD.

 

[simp]

Good piece from yesterday's Irish Times:-

OPINION: Irish influence in Brussels is leveraged most by our diplomats and by skilled negotiating - not opposing for the sake of opposing, writes Brigid Laffan
IRELAND'S VOICE and representation in European institutions is a significant issue in the Lisbon campaign. Two main forces opposing the treaty, Sinn Féin and Libertas, have argued strongly that Ireland got a bad deal in the treaty negotiations and have given up too much in terms of institutional presence. Discussion of the loss of a commissioner and voting weights are prominent.
These claims have not been the subject of sufficient scrutiny. Moreover, discussion of institutional presence must be placed in the context of how Ireland has managed its relations with Brussels in over 35 years of membership.
Successive Irish governments have been very attentive to questions of voice in the EU. Like all small states, Ireland wants a system that gives it sufficient presence to ensure that its core needs are met. In addition, it wants an EU that functions effectively.
The commitment to one commissioner per state was a key principle of Ireland's European policy until Nice. That changed at Nice when it was agreed that there would be fewer commissioners than member states. The Lisbon Treaty makes provision for the rotation of commissioners on a 15-year cycle, with each country having a commissioner for two of three periods of five years.
The Irish government accepted this change because it was based on the strict equality of member states. This was a major concession from the large states and one that may not be on offer again.
All states, large and small, will have to adjust to the rotation of commissioners if Lisbon is ratified. It is, however, misleading to suggest that Ireland depends heavily on having a commissioner in Brussels to promote its interests.
The nerve centre of Ireland's presence in Brussels is the Permanent Representation on the Rue Froissard near the core European institutions. There, Ireland's Permanent Representative, currently Bobby McDonagh, heads a large office of officials drawn from all government departments who act as the eyes and ears of the domestic system.
These officials maintain contact with the European Commission on a daily basis, liaise with the committees of the European Parliament and service the council system.
The representation is a mini-Irish public service at the coalface of EU policy making. Promoting Ireland's interests is at the core of its activities. The representation has adjusted to institutional changes in the past, notably the growing power of the European Parliament, and would adapt to a rotating commission with ease. Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty have also made much of the changes to the voting system. Under Nice, Ireland has seven votes out of a total of 321, which represents 2 per cent of the total pool of votes.
The Lisbon Treaty greatly simplifies the voting system by introducing a double majority system, based on population, on the one hand, and member states, on the other.
A qualified majority will require 55 per cent of the members of the council, comprising at least 15 member states representing 65 per cent of the population. This is both elegant and equitable.
The member state provision favours small member states and the latter balances this with population weight. Those who argue that Ireland has halved its voting power are only doing half of the math. Twelve of the 27 states will be able to block a provision. This gives Ireland almost 4 per cent of the weight on this dimension of the voting system.
Does any of this actually matter to protecting Ireland's interests? Those who argue the details of the voting system have not bothered to check Ireland's actual voting record.
The hard evidence is that the EU system remains largely driven by consensus. Only 25 per cent of decisions that could have gone to a vote between 1994-2004 were voted on.
Qualified majority voting is a facilitator of consensus building rather than the default mechanism in the council. Of those 25 per cent of the decisions that went to a vote, Ireland was rarely in the minority. In 10 years, Ireland only cast seven negative votes and abstained on 14 others.
Irish European policy is not characterised by "no-saying" in the council. Then minister for foreign affairs Brian Cowen put it rather well when he said: "The reality of council business is that our influence depends far more on our capacity to form alliances with like-minded states, large and small, than on minor variations in statistical voting weight."
Since 1973, the Irish governmental system has built up considerable expertise at playing the Brussels system. Although representing a small member state, Irish policy-makers have managed to navigate the multi-level politics of the European Union in a manner that has promoted Ireland's essential interests.
This was achieved by a high level of prioritisation, sophisticated negotiation tactics, high-quality presidencies, not opposing for the sake of opposing, and a problem-solving approach to negotiations. All of those skills will be required as the European Council deliberates on how to meet its ambitious carbon reduction targets in December of this year.
Is Ireland better served by a Taoiseach going into those negotiations with the winds of a Yes or the turbulence of a No? This question serves to bring the choice facing the Irish electorate into sharp relief.
Brigid Laffan is a member of the Irish Alliance for Europe and principal at the College of Human Sciences in UCD

 

[pete]

I'm pretty sure quite a few of them don't.

yeah, the joe higgins one doesn't have any contact info on. The labour one's have their contact details in microscopic text, just as small (if not smaller) than the ones from the chaps that share an address with youth defence.

For example, the monkey one and the "Don't Throw Away Your Freedom Didn't Your Forefathers Die For Ireland" one.

according to the SBP the 3 monkeys one is an austrian design - the same shower that libertas were talking to, so maybe it's a libertas one?

 

[hugh]

yeah, the joe higgins one doesn't have any contact info on. The labour one's have their contact details in microscopic text, just as small (if not smaller) than the ones from the chaps that share an address with youth defence.

Well everyone knows who Joe Higgins and the Labour Party are so I don't see a big problem there. You were right though about the other ones I was talking about. The "forefathers died for Ireland" one is that crowd Coir. It is in tiny tiny tiny print on it. You can only see it if you are literally a foot away from it. I heard some mad bint from that crowd on the radio this morning. It seems if Lisbon goes through there will hordes of foreigners invading our country and murdering our babies or something like that.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

Best argument for NO.

We spent 800 years being oppressed by Britain.
Why should we give up our freedom to be colonised by the Portugese.
Ask the Brazilians how they liked it.

 

[cozy]

Its just unfirtunate that so many cock endish groups are on the no bandwagon. It takes away from significant no arguments

 

[IFF]

Its just unfirtunate that so many cock endish groups are on the no bandwagon. It takes away from significant no arguments

just out of interest, which groups are not cock endish on the no bandwagon?

 

[nlgbbbblth]

surely you'd be too young to vote, cozy?

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

The June issue of Village outlines all the changes that would come with the treaty

http://www.village.ie/tag/Lisbon_Treaty/

 

[Cormcolash]

Why i'm voting Yes

http://sunlituplands.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-catholic-support-treaty-of-lisbon.html

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,sans-serif]Quote:
[/FONT]A spectre is haunting Europe—it threatens you, the Christian future of your family, of Ireland, and of the Continent. It is a European Union without God and without moral principles.

• The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies.
  We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!

Europe was built by the Greeks and the Romans. Pagans.

• The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!

This amounts to a regection of the Charter of Human Rights and in it's place the Bible.

• The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!

The christian version of innocent is strange. Stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives.
As a side note, according to the bible, original sin deems all humans guilty from birth and presumably even before birth

• The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!

Children should not be indoctrinated into the faith that their parents hold. They should be given the freedom choose
As per Richard Dawkins

• The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?

The above passege speaks for itself. surely anti-discrimination is a good thing.​

Dammit, I just saw this today and was going to post it up only to find I've been beaten to it! The Pope wants us all to vote no, that in itself is a good argument to vote yes!

just out of interest, which groups are not cock endish on the no bandwagon?

I was wondering the same thing, no-ones answered that yet.

As far as I can tell, the Lisbon treaty is pretty much a non-issue, and if anything is just another example of why people shouldn't vote in shit referendums like this at all.
The Yes side are wankers, and the No side are even bigger wankers. BURN THEM ALL.

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

Well the treaty does pave way for privatisation in the public spheres, lessens the possibility to veto in WTO-issues, makes EU into a military alliance, includes all that counter-terrorism action jazz that's really open ended. The issue of power shifting towards EU doesn't worry me that muchas an idea, politics have to happen on a larger scale when the issues have got a global form. But the nature of the union goes more authoritarian and neo-liberal which i think is the wrong way of doing this.

 

[frona]

It is really hard to find anything decent and non-scaremongering from either side of the debate. There are legitimate reasons for voting no though, and I'm sure some of the campaigners are saying them even if they prefer hysterical and confusing posters. I mean the lefty nos obviously, not the youth defence eejits!

This for example:

makes EU into a military alliance, includes all that counter-terrorism action jazz

What exactly are they proposing the EU military entail? I mean I think our neutrality is a joke anyway what with Shannon Airport and everything, but I'm still glad we're not officially in NATO. For whose benefit is this army (if it is going to be an army) going to be used?

I have no objection to the EU running more smoothly. At least, I don't think I do, but someone back there did mention this treaty being very bad for the developing world. But that's capitalism for you. It doesn't work without screwing up the developing world. (All the punks are going "don't vote - duh" now)

I have too much doubts to vote yes either way, despite all the tempting free abortions and gay marriage the rightie nos are tempting me with.

I can see a nice sunny evening ruined now because I'm going to have to read the bloody thing. *criez*

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

It is really hard to find anything decent and non-scaremongering from either side of the debate. There are legitimate reasons for voting no though, and I'm sure some of the campaigners are saying them even if they prefer hysterical and confusing posters. I mean the lefty nos obviously, not the youth defence eejits!

This for example:


What exactly are they proposing the EU military entail? I mean I think our neutrality is a joke anyway what with Shannon Airport and everything, but I'm still glad we're not officially in NATO. For whose benefit is this army (if it is going to be an army) going to be used?

I have no objection to the EU running more smoothly. At least, I don't think I do, but someone back there did mention this treaty being very bad for the developing world. But that's capitalism for you. It doesn't work without screwing up the developing world. (All the punks are going "don't vote - duh" now)

I have too much doubts to vote yes either way, despite all the tempting free abortions and gay marriage the rightie nos are tempting me with.

I can see a nice sunny evening ruined now because I'm going to have to read the bloody thing. *criez*

Yeah the legitimate reasons for voting no are not discussed too much. Only of the latest week have I seen No-posters that address anything else than the nationalistic side o things.

I think the major thing that probably causes the yes-vote to win, is that the treaty is made to be quite difficult to read and access, and push "expert" opinions that "this is not a big thing" but "just a technicality". Just like the army bit
http://www.village.ie/Ireland/Feature/Lisbon_Treaty:_Defence/
it doesn't explicitly ask for so and so much more money on arms and shit, but this just enables them to create these rules. It's a framework that sets the limits for their bullshitting and they want it wider.


And all that shite about "progress" being stopped if the treaty doesn't get approved. The progress they want is basically the same old bullshit. The selling the public sector and all the other neocon crap, they're just desperate attempts to compete in the global markets for jobs etc. The global economy fucks everyone over, but the rich always get away somehow, so lets just gamble an another round?

 

[frona]

I've just discovered it's 479 pages long

There's a debate about it on in Limerick tonight though. Might just pop in to that.

 

[therealjohnny]

Look- will someone just tell me the right way to vote on this thing?

 

[HMD]

Look- will someone just tell me the right way to vote on this thing?

vote Dustin