That Lisbon poll… September 3, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Northern Ireland, The Left.trackback
I’ve been watching the posters going up and it’s striking how many of the ‘civil society’ formations are represented on the YES side, at least in Dublin city centre and approaches. They certainly outweigh COIR in numbers, not that that in and of itself is necessarily meaningful. Also evident are posters from FF and FG, but none that I could see from Labour – or indeed SF on the NO side.
Add to that the steady drumbeat of voices being articulated on the YES side in the media and there’s certainly a greater momentum building up more rapidly for that camp than we saw last time.
Mind you, if we were hoping for y’know, issues to be explicated, well that hope lies in ruins. YES FOR JOBS and €1.84, MINIMUM WAGE AFTER LISBON are about the height of it so far, and are in their own ways of such matching vacuity as to be hardly worth the effort of noting them.
But, central to all this, given that it’s just under a week since the first Coir posters went up, and really it’s too soon to tell the effects of this flurry in the public space, are the actual voters…
And the voters, ah yes… the voters. Well, the YES side is still well in the lead, but the figures are as ropey as I’d have suspected they would be.
YES is 46%, -8, NO is 29%, +1 and Don’t Know is 25% or +7.
There’s a lot of food for thought there. Why is the YES side dipping. Is that a function of the near underground campaign we’ve seen so far? Why is the NO side only seeing a marginal increase at best – is it possible that without Ganley and Libertas there isn’t a route for those disaffected middle class and other voters who helped push the NO camp to victory last time out… and what the heck is going on with the DKs? That’s a huge grouping. If they split towards other two proportionate to their relative strengths then the YES side should win comfortably, but with the YES side decreasing substantially that is far from a given.
The only conclusion is that as of this week which in a sense signifies the start of the campaign there remains a considerable amount to play for – which is hardly unexpected for the start of the process, but… the specter of a second defeat must be haunting Brian Cowen this evening, and after the day he’s had given his and his party’s dismal ratings that can’t be much fun.
On the other hand the respective weight of the forces ranged on either side are, to put it mildly, far from equal. And we can bet that Coir will be made the central pivot of the NO campaign, whatever those others involved.
My own prediction? On the day the YES side will most likely shade it. But, it’s going to be tight if this continues the way it appears to be going.
[...] That Lisbon poll… « The Cedar Lounge Revolution [...]
The “civic-society” groupings are fronts for the political-parties. Olive Braiden, founder of “Women for Europe”, was a Dublin FF Euro election candidate in 1994, while Olivia Buckley, head of “We Belong” (to Fianna Fáil?) was FF communications-director in 2002-7. Don’t be fooled into believing this is some kind of spontaneous reaction from civic-society in favour of Lisbon.
Jesus, FutureTaoiseach are you every off the internet?
I am part of a non-party civil-society group that is advocating a Yes vote. We get what little money we have from donations of €10-€20, hence no posters from us. It was simply a group of us that got together and decided we wanted to get the information out to the public. Most of us are non-party, but some are Greens and Labour – not a FF-head between us.
FT, are you going to ignore all the Labour and FG people in Women for Euruope (Grainne Gilmore) and Ireland for Europe? Trying to make this out to be a vote on Fianna Fail is a digraceful dishonesty.
Now are you going to tell us what role you play in Libertas?
Which “little civil society group” do you belong to, Tara? Conservative Trade Union Bureaucrats for Lisbon? Party Youth Wing Careerists for Lisbon? Party Affiliated Lawyers for Lisbon? One of the many, many incarnations of Big Business and Corporate Lobbyists for Lisbon?
And how precisely is it “non-party” if it has Greens and Labour people in prominent roles?
As for disgraceful dishonesty, that just about sums up the whole astroturf “civil society” strategy our political, media and business elite are pushing. Without knowing which organisation you are personally involved in, I’ll make no comment on it, but while Future Taoiseach may be a well known fool, he is in the bigger picture entirely correct about this “civil society for Lisbon” scam.
By the way, I’ve been wondering how “Women for Europe” feel about the grotesquely sexist poster campaign that “Ireland for Europe” has been running.
http://meanwhileatthebar.org/blog/?p=346
Ah, now I’ve hovered the cursor over Tara’s name, all becomes clear. She’s from “Party Youth Wing Careerists for Lisbon”, otherwise known as the hilariously named “Generation Yes”.
Generation Yes was founded by Andrew Byrne, one of Pat Cox’s main henchmen over at Ireland for Europe (the primary home for corporate money in this campaign). It’s membership consists in large part of budding little youth wing hacks desperate to make a name for themselves. The notion that it was just some random group that “got together and decided we wanted to get the information out to the public” is little short of laughable. It’s a very, very minor part of an overall Yes strategy.
Is it not possible that these people may actually entirely and sincerely believe what they say and also believe that what they are doing by saying it is a good thing? After all feelngs run deep on the pro-EU side as well. As for Andrew Byrne, who I know nothing of and hold no brief for, well, Declan Ganley is surrounded by former PDers so I’m not sure that that proves anything one way or another…
And then we get to the knotty question of the Peoples Movement, et al, again who I think are entirely worthy but are actually fairly recent creatures and composed of… well yet again, i was asked today to go out leafleting (or more likely bloody put up posters – always the hard work) for them… of… members and non-members of political parties! Including one or two Greens who dissent from the prevailing line and indeed a number of LP people who do likewise.
BTW, still wondering do you want that cuppa? Email me if you do.
As I’ve already said, I absolutely believe that the creatures who make up much of the membership, such as it is, of these astroturf civil society operations are for the most part entirely sincere in their beliefs. Just as the SWP are sincere in theirs – which doesn’t stop me from noticing the SWP’s fondness for front organisations.
You can perfectly reasonably think that well meaning sincere fools are involved in the Yes astroturf groups, or even that their leading lights are sincere in their devotion to the EU. I think that myself. That doesn’t change the fact that these groups are part of a strategy and do not represent some kind of spontaneous upsurge in pro-Lisbon “civil society” sentiment. “Generation Yes” for instance was founded by an employee of Ireland for Europe. “Women for Europe” consists of a small group of women from our political and business elites.
If you refuse to see that these groups have been deliberately created by business and political elites as part of a broad strategic drive to reframe the Lisbon argument then you miss most of the point of their existence. Just as if you start talking about the Anti-Nazi League without mentioning that it was set up and run by the SWP you’d be missing quite a lot of important detail about that organisation.
True, but… the ANL had a life of its own and a continuation too… even if deliberately created… and what too of the deliberate creations on the other side of the balance sheet? Where do they sit in this?
At some point I think it’s important to recognise that people can make autonomous decisions and that these groups, dislike them as you may, do represent a genuine enthusiasm (one I myself once shared and I’ll be frank, were I twenty years younger and if this were twenty years ago I’d more than likely have been signed up like them – sure I’ve changed and my views are now somewhat different, but even so).
As for strategy, it’s all strategy. The Peoples Movement, et al are part of a strategy to make the base seem broader, to pull in people who aren’t just the usual suspects, etc. I’m not slagging off the PM, quite the opposite, just pointing out that goose and ganders enter into this…
Thursday sounds good…
I don’t think that these bodies do represent a “genuine enthusiasm” distinct from the “genuine enthusiasm” of people who would have been involved in the various parties and business groups agitating for a Yes vote anway. It’s essentially about providing better optics for the usual suspects. If they manage to draw in a few extra useful idiots, that’s a bonus but we aren’t talking about very many people.
There is no grassroots to an organisation like “Women for Europe” – it’s a vehicle for political and business elites masquerading as something else. Similarly “Ireland for Europe”, run by Cox and associates, or “We Belong”, which is run by a former head press officer for FF. Generation Yes, as already noted, was established by an employee of Ireland for Europe. There’s nothing spontaneous about this sudden explosion in these niche or “civil society” Yes campaigns.
The People’s Movement strikes me as a bad example, because a large part of their reason for being is to provide a way for various odds and ends of the left, people who are basically politically homeless, to work together. People who would otherwise be isolated. It’s a sort of group in the traditional sense, at least as far as I can tell. A better comparison would be with VoteNo.ie, which really is about fiddling with the optics. Or even Coir.
Well Patricia McKenna was a member of the GP until less than half a year ago… so I’m not sure that thesis entirely stacks up re the PM. Was that people in parties or long time campaigners trying to ensure the largest spread of No activists possible? It sure was, and damn right too.
I think you also underestimate just how great the shock of losing Lisbon I was on the Yes side of the camp. There was an awful lot of buyer remorse, etc. And… there is another issue. There are an awful lot more people generally who think the EU project and even Lisbon is a “good” thing than is often given credit for. Those people if mobilised do provide a degree of heft. Of course there’s nothing ‘spontaneous’ about this. They lost Lisbon I, they don’t want to again. But those involved aren’t either dupes in the broader sense or going against their own grain in terms of their political approach. And although Libertas got much the same sort of charge any of those I came across in it appeared to me to be pretty genuine, and at least (apparently- says me with an eye on DGs legal eagles) a whole lot more genuine than those at the top of that org.
Unfortunately I wouldn’t doubt the bona fides of those who are activist for Coir either, and that is a whole different story…
(As for meeting, maybe Thursday? I’ll email tomorrow to confirm).
In fairness the SWP aren’t the only group on the left that like a front organisation.
like the OIRA and the WP?
Sorry Mark P but I have no political affiliation and yes am part of Generation Yes, which was started by Andrew Byrne.
I think Lisbon is good for me and good for my country – that’s why I’m working with Generation Yes.
It’s funny watching you try and paint me as some sort of political desperado because I have no side agenda, I’m just a 27 year old Irish citizen who wants Lisbon to be passed and is acting on it! Fancy that!
As for being a sincere fool, we can debate the treaty if you want. I have a BA in European Studies and an MSc in Sustainable Development. Go for it.
And there we go.
Your first claim was that Generation Yes was just some young people getting together to do what’s best for Europe. Now you accept that it was in fact set up by an employee of “Ireland for Europe”, an organisation led by Pat Cox and funded by our business elite. That was the central point I was making. Your personal sincerity or foolishness or both is not an issue I have any interest in.
I won’t comment on your last three sentences because I don’t wish to be unnecessarily cruel.
No offence Tara, but you’re not going to impress anyone here by rolling off your tertiary level qualifications. More likely people are going to be embarassed for you for being so childish.
I’m not rolling them off to impress anyone, I’m stating them to show that I am not a “sincere fool”. Strange the way Mark P’s snide remarks are not considered “childish”…
When you want to actually debate the contents of the treaty, let me know.
If you feel Mark’s remarks to be childish, say so. If you want to debate the treaty, do so. What do your degrees have to do with this?
As I’ve already stated, I mentioned them to show that I’m not totally ignorant on the issues at hand, as suggested by Mark P.
When out canvassing, it’s been a disappointment how many people believe the €1.84 minimum wage red-herring. There’s also a lot of people wanting to vote No as a protest to the government.
I’m sure that there are people who will vote No as a protest against the government. I don’t blame then. Given that the vote is being re-run, it’s entirely reasonable for voters to think voting No will punishment the government but not mean that the arrangements in the Lisbon Treaty will be gone once and for all.
Indeed and I’m a pretty pissed-off voter as well. I never voted for FF, never will and think they’ve destroyed the country and economy of this country.
It’s very possible that the government may be gone in 6 months but the important changes brought about by Lisbon will be around much longer than that. Plus, a No vote didn’t bring down the government last time – what’s there to suggest it will this time? I really don’t think this will be run a third time and if it is I would even vote No! We did the “go again to get a better deal” last time.
A lot of the things within the Treaty could be introduced slowly and gradually by other means I’m sure. But the most important provisions can be stopped by voting No.
Losing two referenda would almost certainly bring down the government. At the very least it would shorten it as all credibility would be gone.
Um…what are the important provisions that need to be stopped?
In my view, the moves to increase the miltiarisation of the EU, and the threats to workers’ rights.
Tara, let me say first of all that I think it’s great you’re involved in the Yes campaign, and that you feel so passionate about it as well. I know it sounds patronising, but it’s one of the fault lines of comments on blogs – nuance and tone is almost impossible to get across. I’m not being patronising, I think it’s great.
But I’m a pretty pissed-off voter as well. There is nothing remotely democratic about this re-run, and I agree with Garibaldy that that point alone warrants a No on my part. The Irish people have already said no, the Irish government said “that’s not good enough”, and now we have to vote again until we get it right. No means No. That’s not a No to bring down the government, that’s a No to remind the government that no means no.
Now, I have other reasons for voting no, particularly with regard to the assault on workers rights and the consolidation of structures that are in place to privatise Europe’s welfare state. What I see is the formation at a structural level of a European State that will serve finance capital over everything else.
But regardless of all of that, No means No.
Oh and FF didn’t destroy this country, their paymasters did – the same paymasters of FG, mind. FF and FG are just the hired help. The ones being bailed out, thems the bosses.
What Conor said.
But all of those missions must be related to aims such as peace-keeping and humanitarian aid. Plus, Ireland retains a veto on all missions and if all 27 countries aren’t in agreement, they can’t wear the EU beret and it won’t be an EU-sanctioned mission.
The reference to improving capacity does not mean increasing capacity, but rather the improvement of efficiency, eg.to avoid doubling up on spending.
Are there other issues?
Conor, not taken as condescending and apologies for childish remarks earlier.
I really don’t see what is undemocratic about having the referendum again. If I make you an offer on the house and you reject the offer, am I not allowed to come back to you with a better offer? The Irish people spoke and the Treaty was rejected. The 27 governments then came together and agreed on legally binding guarantees and Ireland keeping its commissioner. As I said, we are not just voting on the Treaty, we’re also voting on the guarantees and the Decision. For me, this is democracy in action.
I don’t see what you’re saying about workers’ rights. Out of 450 pieces of legislation on workers’ rights in this country, only one didn’t come out of Europe. So I find it pretty hard to swallow the line that the EU doesn’t care about workers’ rights.
As for the privatisation of the welfare state, the Lisbon Treaty for the first time sets out what the EU can and cannot do. Health and Education are firmly left up to the national governments. There is nothing in Lisbon about this.
We’ve seen the abuse of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions by powerful countries already. Sierre Leone springs to mind. A No to Lisbon won’t stop them, but it will strip them of some of a potential figleaf. On top of that, why ought Irish people pay for more up to date military equipment to keep the EU happy? We can spend this money better at home. Militarisation is a vital issue that goes well beyond the Republic, and should be looked at in that context.
I see you haven’t mention Laval and Viking. The EU may have a record of forcing additional workers’ rights in the southern state, but that doesn’t mean that this Treaty does not damage them now.
But above all stands the fact that this is an anti-democratic Treaty, both in our island and the rest of the EU.
Actually on the privatisation of health and education, I would guess that your argument lies in the fact that the Lisbon Treaty does not prevent the privatisation of these services. But nor does it promote their privatisation because, as per the Lisbon Treaty and the text of the legally binding guarantees, the provision of these services remain the remit of national governments and firmly outside the remit of the EU.
To quote: “The European Council confirms the high importance which the Union attaches to:….the responsibility of Member States for the delivery of education and health services;”
BTW, http://www.lisbonexposed.org is an excellent website for the searchable Lisbon Treaty!
Garibaldy,
are you saying you’re opposed to all humanitarian and peace-keeping missions? You’re saying you don’t think Lt. Gen. Pat Nash should be in Chad protecting refugees as we speak? I’m not saying all these missions are performed to perfection but surely they’re better than the alternative of leaving innocent people to fend for themselves. Eg. Rwanda.
No one has said anything about the Irish paying more. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty promotes the improved efficiency of spending precisely so that spending can be minimised! Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty would be the first international treaty that contains mention of Irish neutrality.
In the southern states? I’m talking about workers rights in Ireland! You have yet to quote and explain the relevant articles that are so bad for workers rights in Lisbon. I’d be interested to hear your reasoning. As for Laval and Ruffert, the problem there was the lack of clarification in Swedish national legislation of the minimum wage – something that they have moved to rectify. And actually in both Laval and Viking, the problem would have been solved if Lisbon had been passed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights had been in effect!!
I’m afraid simply repeating that the treaty is undemocratic does not make it so. And ironically enough, Lisbon makes the EU more democratic so voting against it means voting against a more democratic EU.
Tara, I didn’t say Europe doesn’t care about workers’ rights, I’m saying that Lisbon will help to undermine existing workers rights and will set Europe down the road of privatising welfare. In many respects, Lisbon will help turn Europe into a version of Ireland.
Lisbon is not Europe. and as far as a better offer, what we’re been offered isn’t even a different offer! There’s assurances, but it’s not different.
I think there’s an assumption in Ireland, among the left as much as among the right, that Europe is more liberal and has dragged Ireland into the post-war world of rights. But Lisbon isn’t part of that, not at a structural level. In fact, the whole point of Lisbon is to wedge the door open with regard to the assault on post-war European welfare and workers rights. It can’t be done at a State level, so Lisbon is being used to undermine workers rights to appeal and to welfare. you can see that in the rulings of the European Court of Justice and the Viking, Ruffert, Laval, and Luxembourg cases. The rights of “the market” are in the ascent, no doubt.
what Lisbon will do will help in the move to turn Europe into the type of truncated welfare state that Ireland already is.
Funnily enough, I was going to vote yes last time, but I was persuaded in the final week to vote no. This time around I was again wavering, but the talk between Eamonn Devoy and David Begg at the Greaves School put paid to that.
Sorry, just a clarification on Laval and Viking and collective bargaining. The Charter would introduce the right to collective bargaining (wages, conditions and also the right to strike).
Because The Charter wasn’t in effect, the ECJ could only make reference to this right and couldn’t actually apply it, resulting in the unfortunate rulings.
Voting Yes to Lisbon would give workers in Ireland a right to collective bargaining and all that brings with it (incl. right to strike) – something they don’t have today. Lisbon is good for workers rights, not bad!
Colm, I think I have clearly demonstrated above that the EU goes no way in privatising the welfare state. Unless you can provide me with an argument, backed up with references to the relevant articles, I think your argument falls flat.
I have also explained what happened in Laval and Viking, and pointed out how Lisbon introduces the right to collective bargaining. Again, I ask for you to explain how Lisbon lessens workers rights.
What I seem to be getting here is a general complaints about the way Ireland is going, without any real concrete references to Lisbon or how it makes all these things worse.
Tara,
I’m opposed to all imperialist interventions dressed up as humanitarian ones. Rwanda seems to make my point. If ever there was a case for humanitarian intervention that was it. And nothing happened. Apart of course from the French selling weapons to those involved. So you’ll forgive my scepticism.
Neutrality is something that cannot be guaranteed by treaty, but by the voice of the people.
Yes, in the southern state. As in the Republic of Ireland (which is not in my view coterminous with “the country”). Does the Treaty overturn those decisions? If so, I’d be very interested to see where. As for the idea that there is no right to strike until this Treaty. I’m at a loss about that. What about the fact that it allows for collective action by employers? Does that strengthen workers’ rights? There was a thread here recently where sonofstan and Conor dealt very effectively with the issue of workers’ rights, but I can’t find it right now. Perhaps Conor can help if he is still about, or in the morning.
The fact that the electorate of only one state has been given the chance to vote on this after the EU constitution on which it was based was rejected by several countries is entirely undemocratic. In what ways does the Treaty make the EU more democratic?
Oh, the French did more than sell weapons, old man. . . French intervention under the banner of ‘Operation Turquoise’ is widely seen as allowing the genocidal regime time to get its cadres and loyalists across the border into Zaire/Congo. . .
And let’s not forget the original ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Somalia, which ended up with Somali civilians being tortured and killed by the ‘humanitarian’ interventionist troops.
Nor our own Irish troops entirely faultless in this area; consider the squaddie who was sent home in disgrace from Eritrea, having seduced an underage girl into participation in a home-made pornographic video.
Let me take your last point first. Are you actually suggesting that we tell other countries which democratic mechanism to use to ratify international treaties? Binding referenda are illegal in Germany because last time they had one, Hitler happened. Are you suggesting we order every other country to change their constitutions to facilitate a referendum and are you aware of how hypocritical that is?
The Treaty makes the EU more democratic by:
-Citizens Initiative. 1million EU citizens can sign a petition to ask the Commission to pass a law in an area they feel needs attention. I can’t even do that to the Irish government
-The powers of the European Parliament, the directly elected body of the EU, are strengthened through more co-decision. The Parliament is the ‘watchdog’ on behalf of the citizens and as such can amend or reject legislation as it sees fit.
-For the first time, national parliaments will have a role in drafting legislation.
-Council minutes will be made public so we can see who said what and who voted for and against what.
Re: humanitarian interventions. Your cannot argue that humanitarian interventions by the EU are imperialist militarism. What exactly are we gaining from protecting Chad, hm?
As for Irish neutrality, the EU isn’t guaranteeing Irish neutrality in general, it is specifically guaranteeing that the EU will in no way infringe on Irish neutrality.
Workers rights: I’m afraid there is no enshrined right to collective bargaining in this country. Look it up, if you wish. What exactly is your problem with employers also having the right to collective bargaining?
We can’t say that EU military interventions abroad are imperialist militarism? I didn’t realise that you had the authority to decide what we can and cannot say, Tara.
An EU military intervention will, and in practice already does, consist of an intervention led by one or more imperial power, mostly into regions which were previously directly controlled by those imperial powers. You mention Chad as an example. What does Ireland get from involvement there? The answer is it gets a pat on the head from the French for being good little boys and girls, but Ireland is not the central force behind the intervention. The question you should be asking is what does France get from intervention there.
France gets more forces on the ground in an unstable former colony, allowing it to better help its client in an ongoing civil war. In particular, the deployment of troops in the Eastern border region allows them to monitor, discourage and limit assistance to the rebel forces coming from Sudan. This may have escaped your notice, but France plays an active role in the politics of its former colonies, protecting French business interests particularly but not only in natural resource extraction, and stabilising or destabilising regimes depending on how they align with those French interests.
I’m waiting now to see if you are going to seriously tell me that the French would never look after their own interests in Africa and are instead driven by motives that are pure as the driven snow. And if you do, I have some nice real estate you may be interested in. Better than bridges even, we’re talking a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire some development land near Mullingar with planning permission already in place for commuter homes.
Tara said: For the first time, national parliaments will have a role in drafting legislation.
Fair play to you Tara for entering this one and for your evident sincere conviction, but you’re dead wrong on this point. The text of the Treaty, from my reading of it, speaks of “consulting” national parliaments. Now, I would argue that being “consulted” and having an active role are two very different things. As you probably know, politicians often consult widely and then do what they planned to do all along. Consultation is often (always?) an exercise to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to dodgy or difficult policies.
That’s a fundamental problem with Lisbon, at an quick clance it seems fair and progressive, but once you start thinking about what a particular phrase might mean in practice, things quickly become problematic.
This applies particularly to the Charter of Fundamental Rights where each section dealing with workers’ rights is qualified by the proviso “according to community law and national laws and practices” – I’m paraphrasing but that’s the gist of it.
Loving the debate but going to bed
Talk to you tomorrow.
“What I seem to be getting here is a general complaints about the way Ireland is going”
Really? My points have all been focused on the threat to European welfare rights, not Ireland’s. Ireland’s welfare system is already a joke.
With regard to Laval, the concern was the ruling that the right to strike is a fundamental right, but not as fundamental as the right of businesses to supply cross-border services.
The Viking ruling also recognised the right to collective bargaining, but again those rights are strongest at local and national level, and weakened at a trans-national level, where the rights of goods and services to transcend borders takes precedence. That’s why the European Labour movement called for a protocol in Lisbon.
“Binding referenda are illegal in Germany because last time they had one, Hitler happened.”
I wish to cite Godwin’s Law.
Tara,
I’m suggesting that when the people give their No and their governments find a way of avoiding having to ask them it is undemocratic. Both by the rules of those states, and in principle.
The EU Parliament has proven spectacularly useless as a watchdog, and is also suffering what we may politely call a crisis of legitimacy with the average turnout at the last election being under 50%. I place no faith in it, nor the stunt of the citizens’ initiative.
If there are to be humanitarian interventions, the UN is the right body, not a group of in world terms rich and powerful states deciding to act off their own bat. Colonialism is so C19th and C20th centuries.
The problem I have with employers’ having collective power is that I don’t want another Dublin Lockout. Even the Yanks have powerful anti-trust laws. The last thing workers need is more legal and coercive power being placed in the hands of multinationals who we know ride roughshod over workers’ rights throughout the planet as much as they can get away with. I also direct you to Conor’s remarks above.
Mark P – who do you define as imperial powers? And do you have any proof of your claims re: French troop activities in Chad? Of course I’m not going to argue that France does not indulge in realpolitik but EU-sanctioned operations need the approval of all 27 countries. Are you seriously going to tell me that all 27 approve them just so they can get a pat on the head from France? We’re also in Chad under MINURCAT. Are they also the puppets of imperial powers? It is entirely impossible to have every mission avoid every possible “invested interest”. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t happen.
Conor – I have already asked for proof of where the Lisbon treaty promotes the privatisation of health and education services. I’m still waiting. Your interpretation of the collective bargaining aspect of Laval and Viking..but you also come to the conclusion that the situation would be resolved under Lisbon. I don’t understand – how can you still argue this as a negative point against Lisbon?
Garibaldy – The French and Dutch were not voting on the Lisbon Treaty, they were voting in the EU Constitution. I would vote no to an EU Constitution! To preempt the argument that the European Consitutution is 97% the same as the Lisbon Treaty, let me offer the analogy that my DNA is 97% the same as a chimp but I am not a chimp. That 3% is the difference between me and a chimp, and the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, ie the removal of all constitutional references. (BTW, VGiscard d’Estaing is a pompous French git).
You have conveniently ignored my other points on how Lisbon makes the EU democratic. As for the EU Parliament’s failures – will you let me know what they have been?
Re comments on UN..you are aware of who’s on the security council and its origins, right?
Your point on employers collective power is an interesting one. I’ll have to have a think about it and get back to you.
Tara, your naivity about the “real politik” driving international armed interventions is genuinely touching. I wonder, do you apply the same credulousness to American “interventions” as you do to those of the French?
There is no definition of imperial power which doesn’t apply to France, one of the great Empires of the 19th and 20th Century, which was still fighting full scale wars of occupation up until a few decades ago. In the present day it maintains direct possession of a number of colonies and intervenes regularly, politically, economically and when necessarily militarily, in a whole host of former colonies in order to protect and advance its extensive interests in those regions.
You really must think that the EU is a dreadfully absent-minded institution, accidentally sending French troops into one of its former possessions at a time when it is already intervening to prop up a beleaguered client regime. I mean the poor dears must just have overlooked the whole past and present French role in that part of Africa, otherwise they’d have seen how inappropriate it was to send their troops in and never would have dreamt of doing so.
Alternatively, you could accept the reality of the situation. Which is that the EU intervention is driven by France, with the active support of some other member nations and the tacit approval of others. Why do they give their approval? Because it suits them to have France police the region and look after their own interests there if they have any, its worth gaining French goodwill even if they don’t, and it certainly isn’t worth crossing the French over it either way. Better still, they can present the whole thing to credulous fools as a humanitarian mission based on motives as clean as the driven snow.
You might do well, as a starting point, to look at the articles DrX provides below on the French role in Africa before telling us all about the wonders of imperial interventions by the EU (as opposed to interventions by those dreadful yanks of course).
Tara,
Some of your points have been responded to by others. Dismissing d’Estaing as a pompous git is far from addressing the central point he made; which was that this is the constitution in disguise.
As for the Parliament’s failures. It is a glorified talking shop, and has proven ineffective thus far in closing the democratic deficit. So you’ll forgive me for being sceptical.
The treaty is aimed at further ensuring “free competition”. That in itself is a limitation on the rights of a state to regulate its economy, and does it in the interests of big capital.
Garibaldy, Which of my points have been successfully addressed?
-the supposed EU push for privatisation of health and education hasn’t been proven. In fact, I have proven the exact opposite.
-the increased militarisation of the EU has not been proven. Under Lisbon, all EU operations will be bound by international law in a way the the US currently isn’t so gulf war references are invalid.
-the lessening of workers rights haven’t been proven, in fact I have demonstrated how they will be increased.
-you haven’t provided any specific examples of the failure of the European Parliament.
You haven’t proven that the European Consitutution is the same as the Lisbon Treaty. Actually, let me quote you the full text of D’Estaing’s infamous quote (long, but clearly necessary:
“A recent proposal suggests retaining a number of the reforms of the constitutional treaty, and dividing them into a series of texts. The most innovative proposals would become single amendments to the Treaties of Maastricht and Nice, while the technical improvement would be grouped together in an inoffensive treaty. This set of texts would be presented to the Member States’ parliaments that would decide on it separately. In this way, public opinion would unknowingly adopt the proposals that we dare not present directly.
This approach of “Divide and Ratify” is clearly not appropriate for such important issues. Such exercises in deception simply (serve to) reinforce the idea among European citizens that the European Union is a machine driven by lawyers and politicians behind their backs. It is also contrary to the ambition written into the 2001 Laeken Declaration that this approach “eventually leads to the adoption of a Constitutional Treaty”.”
Re: free competition. What you don’t seem to get is that Lisbon is actually a step back from the free competition that has been a long European project. For the first time, limits are set on free competition as needs to be balanced by social concerns eg:
Article 152 (new) recognising the role of the social partners
Article 34 of charter (social security and social assistance)
and the affirmation in the Irish guarantees of:”the high importance which the Union attaches to:social progress and the protection of workers’ rights;”
These are NEW clauses and clearly work to balance free competition.
Here’s a piece from last year on German responses to French policy in Chad:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,531792,00.html
And here’s a piece from International Viewpoint on an earlier French intervention, in Ivory Coast:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article553
Tara,
I’ve moved it beyond the health and education issues to the general purpose of the Treaty. Which is clearly to make life easier for multinational capital. You can deny that the commitment to increase military spending and cooperate further is not militarisation if you wish. The fact is that the EU is building its military capacity, even if it is not easily launched. We’ve seen several EU members ignore international law when it suits them. So again, you’ll forgive me for being sceptical. The impact on workers’ rights extends far beyond the charter. The court judgments do impact upon the right to strike, and as I’ve said there is the question of the extent to which this strengthens the power of the employers yet further. The EU Parliament is a systemic failure as far as I’m concerned.
As for social security and assistance. These are things covered by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It’s hardly as though there aren’t already provisions made for these, and unless there are facts and figures – like there are for military spending IIRC – it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Recognising the role of the social partners. What concrete means are provided for that? There are a lot of fine words, but very little actual detail.
Dr X – the arguments in that Spiegel article are not backed up with any evidence. But as to the arguments about it taking so long, the Lisbon Treaty will help speed up deployment of peacekeeping troops by removing a lot of the bureaucracy involved today. In fact, efforts in Chad to set up refugee camps have been hampered by the extensive bureaucracy that Lisbon deals with. I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than vague accusations that provide zero evidence to back up their claims.
Garibaldy – Show me the clause that orders the EU to increase its military capacity. EU members can ignore international law if they want to – saying No to the Lisbon Treaty is not going to change that.
Re: Laval & Viking. Please go back and read the ECJ judgements because it’s becoming clear that you haven’t. They clearly show that if Lisbon had been passed, the outcome would have been very different. I don’t understand why you’re not getting this. Oh and on collective bargaining in Ireland? Did you see the front of the Irish Times today? Headline: “Fine Gael said today it will introduce legislation which recognises the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining if elected to government.
The party’s Enterprise, Trade & Employment Spokesman Leo Varadkar said if Irish people vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, that any future government should honour Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which includes the right to bargaining with employers.”
I find it strange that someone so concerned about the impact of Lisbon on workers rights is so unfamiliar with the situation on the ground.
Re: privatisation of social welfare. I think it’s pretty clear you’ve lost the argument there. “Moved it beyond”? You’re moving into vague accusations and unless I’m mistaken, you’ve yet to quote any article of the Treaty. If you continue to believe this, when I have clearly quoted from the Treaty, showing that the EU does not have any remit over health and education, I really don’t know what to say.
And now you’re arguing about there being “a lot of fine words”? I’m sorry but I can’t debate when it’s being reduced to arguments like that.
Mark P – if you provide some proof other than some magazine articles I’d be perfectly happy to rid myself of my endearing naivite of realpolitk. Otherwise, please take off the tinfoil hat.
Predictably you didn’t answer any of my questions or engage with any arguments I made.
Tell me again, Tara, do you take George Bush or other American leaders at face value when they send troops into countries full of brown people, or is your gullibility reserved only for the imperial adventures of EU member states?
Do you think it’s likely that a former colonial power might have interests, financial and political, to protect in its former colonies and that these interests may sometimes be rather closer to its heart than the overwhelming desire to lay down its soldiers lives for the good of the locals?
At what point precisely do you think France ceased being an imperial power, despite still maintaining actual colonies and taking on itself the right to intervene politically, economically and militarily in its former colonies?
Seriously though, don’t ever change. It’s genuinely heart warming to encounter such a true believer in the pure souls and purer motives of Sarkozy, Chirac, Berlusconi, Blair, Merkel, and the rest of the European elite. The world at large is too negative these days, what with all those people who don’t just take the rulers of major imperial powers at their word when they tell us that invading poor countries is really for the locals own good. Truly you can provide us all with a shining beacon of trusting imbecility to guide us through the long dark night of cynicism.
The Treaty does commit states to more intensively develop their military capacity does it not in the Protocl on Structured Cooperation?
I’ve read the judgments. Where do they show that if Lisbon had been passed the outcome would be different? As for collective bargaining. We have social partnership. We have had the strike recognised as a legal entity for more than 100 years. Spare me the idea this is some radical breakthrough.
I haven’t been talking particularly about the privitisation of social welfare. What I have been saying is that the purpose of the Treaty is to further remove impediments to the interests of multinational corporations by instituting at a greater level the neo-liberal model throughout the EU. What it calls a free market without distortion or whatever the exact phrase is.
Again, show me the concrete means for recognising the role of social partners.
Tara, out of a matter of interest (and I’m not being mischievous, I just would genuinely like to know your opinion on this), do you think it would be acceptable if foreign firms, from countries where rates of pay are much lower than here, were allowed to employ their workers in Ireland at those home rates of pay. I voted yes the last time, and in all the Euro referendums down the years, but the Viking Laval judgement worries me somewhat on this point. Perhaps I’m reading it wrongly. But, aside from that, would you think this kind of labour mobility is a good thing?
EamonnCork, I believe that people have the right to a living wage, wherever they work. So I don’t agree with the rulings in Laval and Viking. But these judgements happened without Lisbon. In other words, they were based on existing legislation, both national and EU. And as such, I don’t see why anyone would consider these cases when deciding how to vote on Lisbon. Laval happened under Nice. Vote NO to Lisbon and we remain under Nice. Nothing changes. But hopefully what will happen is that the loophole in the law has been identified and moves will be made to change it, as has been recognised by the statement of the European Council.
Garibaldy, re: protocol on structured cooperation. There is nothing in the protocol or article 42 (TEU) that talks about increasing capacity. It’s about things like making sure everyone is using the same radio frequency when they land in Chad, etc. If anything, improved efficiency will allow for Ireland to reduce its military spending. It’s about better efficiency and removing duplication. But we are already members of the EDA (a research and procurement agency) and the EDA already has the development of capabilities within it’s remit, as per the original Council decision to set up the EDA, viewed here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_245/l_24520040717en00170028.pdf
If you can’t appreciate the importance of a legal right in relation to collective bargaining then you’re not doing workers rights any favours. Is there any point in having any laws at all, if that’s the case? And social partnership? What a disaster.
OK apologies if you weren’t arguing about the ‘privatisation of the welfare state’ – this is a long thread!
As for recognition of the role of social partners – that’s exactly what Article 152 (TFEU) does!! TBH, if you can’t understand what the insertion of this clause in an international treaty does, I don’t know what to say. Quote of the article in full: “The Union recognises and promotes the role of the social partners at its level, taking into account the diversity of national systems. It shall facilitate dialogue between the social partners, respecting their autonomy. The Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment shall contribute to social dialogue.”
Can you find that exactly “free market distortion” quote? I’m not sure which one you mean. Thanks!
“Seriously though, don’t ever change.”
Ah, the motto of the Trotskyist.
Tara,
The version of the Treaty I found at the Official Journal of the EU does contain the phrase “proceed more intensively to develop its defence capacities”. If it’s about removing duplication, why has the Irish army being calling for more expensive and more modern equipment to carry out tasks in places like Chad? And why have such things been bought? Let the big countries that already have the capacity to do these things already do them.
My point about collective bargaining is that it is already recognised in law in court cases where the legality of strikes and collective deals have been upheld.
Thank you for the quote on social partners. I’ll ask again what concrete measures does it propose as opposed to fine words?
The protocol on the internal market and competition says that the internal market as set out in the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition not distorted.
How exactly does Lisbon undercut the Laval and Viking judgments? Will it reverse the fact that the rights of the employers have been placed above those of the workers? If so, how?
Garibaldy, provisions for improving equipment already exist in the Council decision to set up the EDA – please see above link. If the Irish Army is calling for more modern equipment, did they say that we had to buy it?
Collective bargaining -*sigh* you don’t think having a legal right to it is important? I think it’s important for workers rights. Where has the right entered into case law?
Fine words? Again, you don’t seem to grasp the importance of “fine words” in international treaties – conveniently, just when it suits your argument. This again is important for workers rights
I didn’t say that Lisbon undercuts the Laval and Viking judgements. I said it has nothing to do with it.
Are you talking about Protocol no 7? It doesn’t quote say that now does it and you know it:
“The Union, its assets, revenues and other property shall be exempt from all direct taxes. The governments of the Member States shall, wherever possible, take the appropriate measures to remit or refund the amount of indirect taxes or sales taxes included in the price of movable or immovable property, where the Union makes, for its official use, substantial purchases the price of which includes taxes of this kind. These provisions shall not be applied, however, so as to have the effect of distorting competition within the Union. No exemption shall be granted in respect of taxes and dues which amount merely to charges for public utility services.”
I oppose Irish membership of the EDA too. Because I oppose the EDA and all other moves to militarise the EU.
I have no problem with a specific right to collective bargaining being enshrined in law. But given that no-one would think for one second of denying the right to collective bargaining, I’m not going to pretend it’s some massive victory and advance on what we have now. Because it isn’t.
You said earlier that had Lisbon been in place it would have meant that the Laval and Viking judgments could not have taken place, or words to that effect (as you said yoursel, it’s a long thread, so I’m not going to go looking for the exact words, so I hope I am not misremembering. Apologies if so). That is what I meant by undercutting those judgments.
The protocal I am talking about is this one
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0156:0156:EN:PDF
To be honest I don’t know how you could think that I was talking about the one you quote. I gave its exact title.
Oh yes wow how could I possibly make a mistake about a document as large as the Lisbon Treaty. Yes, I must be some sort of cretin to make a mistake..
If you oppose the EDA, then there still is no point to voting NO because it won’t get rid of it. But I respect your opinion and acknowledge I’m not going to change it
And with that, I’m signing off. Good day!
‘Oh yes wow.’ Isn’t that a quote from Althusser’s On Marx?
At least this thread is reasonably respectful and thanks Tara for coming on to defend the YES campaign. Over on the Sean Garland one I’ve pretty much given up considering the level of rancour…
You’re right. Apologies to Tara for the unnecessary smartarsery on my part, I can only claim excessive giddiness brought on by witnessing Sligo Rovers knocking Bohs out of the cup last night. In fairness, this is a good thread. Sorry again.
I can only claim excessive giddiness brought on by witnessing Sligo Rovers knocking Bohs out of the cup last night.
Altitude sickness?
No, fair play, we should have taken care of it on Friday. You lot must be favourites now!
On topic: i voted yes the last time, and will again, albeit with more reservations – chiefly the legitimacy of running it again to get the right result (as if the FAI decided that they wanted a Bohs/Rovers final, and reran last night games in order to achieve that). Point is, it’s not a simple left -right issue, nor is it a yes/no kind of referendum: i can’t imagine the treaty represents anyones exact vision of a better EU, or, indeed, that it would be possible for an agreed position to emerge on either side. Given this, making assumptions about the hidden affiliations or agendas of people, or tarring people by association is just silly: no one is going to accuse Joe Higgins of being in cahoots with COIR, so why present Tara as the stalking horse of multi-national capital?
Your position is very very close to mine on all the points you make.
One thing that’s a bit depressing in the broader debate is an inability to accept that there can be genuinely differing views on this on both left and right, that it doesn’t come down to a simple left right yes no because it genuinely is hugely complex and that implementation or non-implementation will have both positives and negatives (and by the way that’s true of both sides on this issue). But beyond that the idea that people can’t think for themselves is a bit dispiriting. People can and do… and that should be respected both rhetorically and actually.
Don’t tempt the FAI by mentioning a re-run. It’s odd, I’m probably going to vote yes yet I find myself on the opposite side to most of the people I admire most in Irish politics and on the same side as most of those I despise most. Perhaps the reason is that I believe an Ireland outside Europe would be closer to the isolationist jingoistic right-wing backwater dear to the hearts of Coir than the non-aligned enlightened left-wing state the anti people on this site believe it might be. I’m also unwilling to be a stalking horse for British Euro-scepticism, most of it propounded by people with the most fearful hatred of everything Irish. This strikes me as perhaps an illogical attitude on my part but emotionally it’s where I am.
EC,
But voting No doesn’t leave us outside Europe, and there are very few people who want to leave the EU anytime soon in the south I would say. As for the stalking horse thing. As you hint yourself, you could end up a stalking horse for the people who have destroyed the economy with the neo-liberalism contained in the Treaty.
Don’t tempt the FAI by mentioning a re-run. I
…most people here probably think the cabal of FF, the bankers and developers that have wrecked the place over the past decade represent a nadir in venality and incompetence in Irish public life: a point below which it would be impossible to sink. LoI fans know better (or worse) – we can imagine what it would be like if the FAI ran the country….
I wouldn’t worry EC. She seemed to take in the spirit it was meant…
Tara,
I wasn’t suggesting you were a cretin at all. And apologies if it came across like that, although I don’t think I did. As WBS says, good to have you here.
Tara was pretty disingenuous in claiming that a requirement for states ‘to progressively enhance their military capabilities’ does not mean ‘spend more on’ whatever all the current doing more with less rhetoric might have people believe, if you want to enhance something you generally have to spend more money on it
lisbon is relevant to privatisation of health and education because it removes the automatic veto of ireland over opening up services in those areas to foreign (i.e. private) competition – we now have to prove that foreign investment would seriously distort our delivery of those services in order to veto it
the citizens petition thing is nonsense – petitions are the oldest and feeblest form of democracy as people in power can just ignore them, that’s why people demanded universal suffrage and weren’t just content to ‘petition’ their masters -there’s nothing in lisbon that compels the EU to take action on citizens’ petitions they just have to consider them, which is effectively meaningless
re collective bargaining and other workers’ rights in the charter, they are all irrelevant in an Irish context as they only apply insofar as they already exist iin national laws (in accordance with national law and practices is roughly the phrase) – that’s why the collective bargaining clause does not compel the irish govt to introduce collective bargaining, and why siptu did not support the treaty the last time
all the rights in the charter are to be balanced by the ECJ against the ‘freedoms’ to be enjoyed by employers and existing EU treaties which promote undistorted competition etc. if the ECJ was a pro-worker activist court run by the likes of Joe Higgins then of course it would interpret EU law and the Charter in a way favourable to workers – the trouble is it isn’t and it won’t be
the lisbon treaty and the charter are strcutured in such a way as to contain figleaves everyone can point to to say they have protected their constituents’ interests, but in reality it all comes down to interpretation by the pro-business ECJ and the balance of power in the Union which rests with the major powers and business interests
Ah thanks guys
You seem like a nice bunch. Sorry about smart-arsed comments above. I must confess I was the far side of tipsy when I started posting.
dmfod, if your problem is with privatisation, then your problem is with the national governments, not the EU. The Lisbon Treaty clearly, clearly states that health and education are not within the EU’s remit and are left up to national governments. Therefore if any privatisation does happen, it will be because national government decided to make it so. There is no need for a veto because the EU will never make a decision in this area, under Lisbon! I’m against privatisation of social services as well (and it’s terrible that in this country so many vital services are left up to voluntary organisations).
Ah OK hands up citizens initiative is a bit wishy washy
I suppose you couldn’t bind the commission into making laws because we all know there are more than 1 million nutbar nazis out there that can organise themselves. But still, if it does come it, it would be interesting to see it in action – I think Irish milk farmers, for example could make good use of it.
Collective bargaining – so why does SIPTU and all the major trade unions support it now?
Of course workers rights have to be balanced against economic interests. But I don’t see the two as always being diametrically opposed – there are plenty of areas where the two overlap. Can you prove that the balance of power in the Union rests with the major powers and business interests (funny…all that environmental regulation is not exactly 100% pro-business. In fact ,what do you think Ganley is going getting involved??)
Your claim that ‘all the major trade unions’ support the treaty is untrue. In fact the second largest union UNITE opposes it, as does the last union to hold a successful strike in this country – the TEEU.
By “SIPTU”, you actually mean the unelected bureaucrats who run SIPTU rather than SIPTU as an organisation of thousands of workers. No ballot of the membership was ever held on Lisbon and if it had been, it is likely a majority would have supported a no vote just as they did the last time they were asked in the referendum last year (I’m extrapolating this from the overall no vote and the fact that working class people, who make up SIPTU, voted no in overwhelming numbers).
The question then becomes – why does the SIPTU leadership favour a no vote despite the fact that nothing in the treaty has changed since last year when they did not support it? I can’t read their minds, but the fact that they would do virtually anything to resurrect partnership might be a factor, as might the fact that Jack O’Connor has said he favours FF’s continuance in government over FG. Obviously a no vote would undermine the government and make an election more likely.
As for your question ‘Can you prove that the balance of power in the Union rests with the major powers and business interests?’, it is obvious from your hegemonic worldview that nothing short of a clause in the treaty allocating more votes to major powers and business interests would convince you that this is the case. As it happens the treaty does allocate more votes to the major powers and increases their voting strength at the expense of smaller states like Ireland.
As to whether business interests are dominant in the EU, I suppose this depends on whether you’ve noticed we live under a capitalist economic system whereby everything ultimately depends on keeping business happy and all other concerns are a distant second.
Finally, you say ‘Of course workers rights have to be balanced against economic interests. But I don’t see the two as always being diametrically opposed – there are plenty of areas where the two overlap.’ From your wording, by economic interests, you appear to mean employers’ interests (as workers’ rights are obviously not opposed to workers’ economic interests), which I do believe are fundamentally opposed to workers’ interests as the whole basis of profit is underpaying workers for their value of the labour and extracting the difference as profit.
I’ll get back to you on the privatisation issue when i’ve time to find the relevant clauses in the treaty…
Heh, guys I’ve just thought of a reason for even the No voters to vote Yes.
At the moment there is no provision for Ireland to leave the EU but under Lisbon, this provision is created and laid out. So if you don’t like the EDA, other underlying trends in the EU, etc vote Yes!
Tara Welcome to CLR
Dont you think there is an issue of Democracy here, where else in the world would a country be asked/told twice that the first electoral result was wrong and they had to go back and do it again to get the right result. This is a charade, a total disgrace, Robert Mugabe eat your heart out.
tara the argument isn’t to stay in or leave the EU its about what shape the EU takes. as members were entitled to take part in that ‘debate’.
the yes argument that amounts to dismissing critisism of the EU as dis loyal reminds me of roger casements speach to the dock were casement showed that loyalty is a two way street and what britian realy ment by trying him for treason was that he was disobidient.
i don’t need to be obident to anyone as a first i really hope the no vote wins again so this disrepectfull tone to me and my country can be addressed and as equals we have a proper debate about the pontential for europe. the yes side probably have it but it won’t be for stong confident reasons.
Hi Shea, I’m not saying you’re not entitled to debate – I’m really enjoying this one, for example. I suppose I mentioned the clause that allows us to leave the EU above because there seem to be some objections to some long-standing tenets of the EU (eg EDA) that are not going to be resolved by voting No to Lisbon. I would also say that in Lisbon there is increased transparency and democracy (as outlined in previous posts) so if you really want to see these things change, you’re more likely to have more input in that change once Lisbon is passed.
Yeah the ‘they’ve been good to us’ and economic scaremongering arguments don’t hold any water with me either. After all 63% of No voters last time agreed that the EU has been a positive force in Ireland. But I think the other member states of the EU did come together in June and try to work out a deal with the Irish government that would address the concerns of the Irish voters. What is disrespectful about that?
Maddog Wilson – thanks!
No I don’t think there is anything democratic about a second vote for a few reasons. First, research after the referendum showed that the majority of voters (Yes and No) voted on issues that were unrelated to the Treaty with 42% saying they voted No because they didn’t understand the Treaty. Now I place full blame on the governmentand referendum commission for not explaining the Treaty properly or getting the unbiased information out there. But the fact remains that many, many voters were effectively voting in ignorance. In a democracy, suffrage is restricted to those who it is assumed have the capacity to understand the issues at hand and make an independent choice on the issue. If we believed the opposite, that an understanding the issues wasn’t fundamental to the vote, we could remove the age limit of 18 and allow everyone, including toddlers to vote.
Secondly, this vote is not identical to the last referendum. Last time we voted one thing: the Lisbon Treaty. This time we are voting on three things: the Lisbon Treaty, the legally binding guarantees and the Decision to allow us to keep our Commissioner. In my opinion, the second referendum is democracy in action because the Irish people spoke, the other member states listened and came together to work out a better deal that would suit us. We are now being asked to consider this new arrangement – I would consider it undemocratic if I weren’t allowed to have a say on that new arrangement!
Oh and dmfod re: “improving” meaning “increasing” – like to explain why?? Just stating it as fact does not make it so.
If I improve my energy bills, it doesn’t mean that I am increasing them, in fact it means quite the opposite. Improving can refer to the following:
-promoting and coordinating harmonisation of military requirements
-identifying and proposing collaborative activities in the operational domain
-coordinating between national defence plans
As is outlined in the original Council decision to set up the EDA (has anyone even bothered to click on the link??)
If the phrase ‘progressively improve their military capacities’ means ‘coordinate’ ‘harmonise’ ‘collaborate’ etc. then why are those terms not used in the treaty? probably because if it said ‘progressively coordinate and harmonise their military capacities’, people wouldn’t like this either as it is an obvious step towards the development of a common defence as your quote ‘coordinating between national defence plans’ makes clear.
The treaty puts the EDA on a stronger legal footing by institutionalising it in the treaty.
As you have argued ‘improve’ includes military coordination, harmonisation and collaboration, but there is no reason to believe it is restricted to that – that is just an interpretation of the word ‘improve’ you are putting on it. Given that Art 1-40 par 3 also says part of the EDA’s role is to ‘strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector’ I think you’re being very disingenuous to say this does not amount to militarisation or spending more on that defence sector
I won’t even go into the implications for all of this for neutrality in the broad sense in which it is understood by the majority of the Irish population who support it, rather than the narrow legalistic interpretation successive governments have used to try to empty the term of all substantive meaning bar no joining NATO
“As is outlined in the original Council decision to set up the EDA (has anyone even bothered to click on the link??)”
Well we don’t all have your education Tara.
But keep up the patronising tone, it may turn a soft no like me into a yes.
Conormccabe1, I’ve put up the link two or three times at this stage. And I’ve made the point on the EDA two or three times as well. Forgive me if I don’t have your patience.
Tara, you’re putting in the hard yards on this one. But I’d have to say I disagree with your rationale on the re-running of the vote. It’s sheer sophistry to say it’s being re-run because 42% of people say they didn’t understand the issues the first time round. We regularly have general elections where it turns out people were confused about the policies of different parties and, of course, where parties are elected after promising to implement policies which they never carry out. Witness past FF commitments to bring down the pupil-teacher ratio and improve the health services which were forgotten once a sufficient number of seats had been garnered. People are often polled to see if they know what’s in the election manifestoes of the parties and large numbers don’t know. This might be cause for a re-run of elections in some Platonic ideal of a democracy but it doesn’t happen in real life.
It’s perfectly justifiable for the government to say that they’re re-running the vote because they think a yes is so important to our national interest that every possible effort should be made to secure it. And that’s why we’re going at it a second time, because the government didn’t like the first result. No other reason. Whether you think that’s OK probably depends on which side you’ll be voting for. In fairness, I didn’t object when we had a second vote on divorce, even if it took them a decade to get round to it.
By the way, sorry to hear they’re going to run a motorway through you. And pardon people’s occasional inaccuracies and inattention, most people on this site have quite a few things they’re preoccupied with whereas the length and detail of your responses would suggest that the referendum is your over-riding priority at the moment.
‘ we can imagine what it would be like if the FAI ran the country….’
Reminds me of the late Bill Graham’s class description of the late Soviet Union as ‘like an entire continent run by the GAA’.
Brilliant. Never heard that.
EamonnCork, oh yes of course there is the factor that the government wants the Lisbon Treaty passed. I could say that if we ever want a referendum againt Lisbon, we just have to vote in Sinn Fein into government – an unlikely scenario. My above argument wasn’t mainly dealing with why it was being run again (although it is relevant) but I was really debating against the idea that running it again is undemocratic.
Hmm looks like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. Write detailed responses and I’m obsessed yet I’m sure I’d get similar slack if I resorted to dismissive one liners! Such is the nature debating online, as I’m learning!
I didn’t mean that as a criticism. The more detailed the response the better. So consider yourself undamned.
tara, the EDA and the legal struture to constitute an EU forgien policy are being emascuated in this treaty. saying its there already is dismissive. the debate should be why shold there be a legal comitment to increase military spending why does the EU seek the right to ‘disarm’ other contries etc.
i don’t believe the governments adressed concerns. saying X Y or Z aren’t mentioned in the treaty is not the same as sameing that confering competencesies on the eu the consequences of which at some future point issue x y or z may be diliberated in europe. there two different aruments. the offerd solution is a play on words.
were pooling decision making ability. at the least i want to hear why or what are the pro’s or god forbid, pay coir a tribute, the cons and make a decision from there. one of the simple cons is different Dialetics in operation it different contries. depending on a number of factors countries are continually evolveing, deevolving through covervative – liberal phazes in there respective history, this all has a consequence relying on progessive legislation from europe indefenatly is nieve, thats not to deny it but simple cop on. the argument ah sure, europe hasn’t done it bad up to now can’t seriously be enough to give compatencies away.