Martin: Don’t focus on details of Lisbon

[keepitreal]

This is an obvious strategy for ther government (let FG deal with the details)

1) In relation to details, only lawyers, nerds and the utterly dishonest understand them anyway. If you have to explain you are losing.
2) People can download a copy of the bloody thing themselves.
3) Going for the big picture is always far better to sell an International Treaty to people (think stepping stones and the Articles of Association for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland - do you think they got bogged down about Treaty Ports, pensions or annunities in 1922?*).
eg
a) Europe has been good to us so far and this is simply the next step to stary part of the inner club.
b) We do not want to be Iceland
c) The Treaty does not change the situation that much anyway, and where it does those who deal with it are happy with the changes.
d) The Foreign affairs position allows us more influence on Gaza.
e) We will use the EU to get the Germans to reduce their Greenhouse emissions after all why should we go it alone?
f) Voting No is bad for the economy.

It may be less honest, but it is far more effective (another round of argunig what Article 48 means, anyone).


*Multitext - "Articles of Agreement as signed, 6 December 1921"
Apparently this is still a recognised International Treaty, despite having being formerly revoked by the Westminster and by us implicitly in 1937.

Is that the best you can do? Don't know which is worse, your statement above or Martin's

[MacCoise]

Nope - I'll have to work within the present system for the reversal of both those bad choices.

Fair enough , good luck with that

[ibis]

This is an obvious strategy for ther government (let FG deal with the details)

1) In relation to details, only lawyers, nerds and the utterly dishonest understand them anyway. If you have to explain you are losing.
2) People can download a copy of the bloody thing themselves.
3) Going for the big picture is always far better to sell an International Treaty to people (think stepping stones and the Articles of Association for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland - do you think they got bogged down about Treaty Ports, pensions or annunities in 1922?*).
eg
a) Europe has been good to us so far and this is simply the next step to stary part of the inner club.
b) We do not want to be Iceland
c) The Treaty does not change the situation that much anyway, and where it does those who deal with it are happy with the changes.
d) The Foreign affairs position allows us more influence on Gaza.
e) We will use the EU to get the Germans to reduce their Greenhouse emissions after all why should we go it alone?
f) Voting No is bad for the economy.

It may be less honest, but it is far more effective (another round of argunig what Article 48 means, anyone).


*Multitext - "Articles of Agreement as signed, 6 December 1921"
Apparently this is still a recognised International Treaty, despite having being formerly revoked by the Westminster and by us implicitly in 1937.

No, it is not an obvious strategy for the government, unless they want to lose the vote again. It is a "mushroom" approach to the voters - keep them in the dark and feed them bullsh1t - and it will both deserve and get another No vote.

Where in what you have suggested is the positive message? Why should we, the electorate, buy this Treaty? And bear in mind that at this stage the electorate wouldn't buy a used car (or a used economy) off this government. Sitting back and hoping the combination of FG and recession will do the government's work for them is exactly what it sounds like - a lazy, disrespectful cop-out.

If the government pursues the strategy implied by Martin, I will also be voting No. Let FF go back to the other member states with the message that once again they didn't bother to pull the finger out.

[goosebump]

Where in what you have suggested is the positive message?

There isn't one, but there isn't really any positive message for Ireland as an entity in the Treaty.

The Government needs to stop focusing on what the Treaty means for Ireland, and start talking about what it means for Europe, where it can point to positives.

Ireland is after all in Europe.

[MacCoise]

There isn't one, but there isn't really any positive message for Ireland as an entity in the Treaty.

The Government needs to stop focusing on what the Treaty means for Ireland, and start talking about what it means for Europe, where it can point to positives.

Ireland is after all in Europe.

Jesus! well at least you admitted that there's nothing good for us in it but to think that selling it as good for Europe is the way to go!

Actually I should really keep quiet, ........yes,

that's a great idea sell it on the basis that is not actually good for Ireland but for "Europe"

this is going to be fun

[DaBrow]

Let's remember one thing; people should treat Lisbon like the affair of the nice Treaty.

In 2001 when we voted No to Nice, we feared it would lead to mass-immigration which the ruling classes of course denied strenously.................. aftwer all these promises we voted yes and ratified the document which brought about our fear.

We were lied to about Nice and we're being lied to about Lisbon.....................

We should not vote for a document that allows more of our soverignty to be stripped away from us............................. Vote No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We got ourselves into this recession because we had a false economy and sqaundered money that was loaned to us; the euro rate against the pound has killed our export market with the UK which accumilates to 33% of our export market, worst of all we have the highest operating costs in europe making us uncompetitive.


Rejecting Lisbon has nothing to do with our state finances or economy going down the drain; the rest of europe whom ratified the treaty are suffering the same problems as us.

[goosebump]

Jesus! well at least you admitted that there's nothing good for us in it but to think that selling it as good for Europe is the way to go!

Actually I should really keep quiet, ........yes,

that's a great idea sell it on the basis that is not actually good for Ireland but for "Europe"

this is going to be fun

If our interest in the EU is purely national, there isn't actually any point in being in the EU.

[FutureTaoiseach]

In other words a repeat of the tactics of Lisbon 1. Good.

[Question R24U]

No, it is not an obvious strategy for the government, unless they want to lose the vote again. It is a "mushroom" approach to the voters - keep them in the dark and feed them bullsh1t - and it will both deserve and get another No vote.

Where in what you have suggested is the positive message? Why should we, the electorate, buy this Treaty? And bear in mind that at this stage the electorate wouldn't buy a used car (or a used economy) off this government. Sitting back and hoping the combination of FG and recession will do the government's work for them is exactly what it sounds like - a lazy, disrespectful cop-out.

If the government pursues the strategy implied by Martin, I will also be voting No. Let FF go back to the other member states with the message that once again they didn't bother to pull the finger out.

I would keep FG out of the campiagn as much as possible (they are counterproductive to any campaign - see results in Mayo) and just focus on FEAR of the effects of another No vote. But give people some positive message as well, but that is largely tokenism (maybe make them shorter and change the order):



1) Lisbon was an improvement on the Constitution, and if Lisbon fails the next deal on offer will be substantially worse for Ireland and it will be not on the basis that all have to sign up.
2) Those that deal with the EU at Council level (ie the coalface) have no problem with the dilution of voting strength there, so why should I (again Ibis)
3) The Green Ministers' point about the inability of Ireland to influence Environmental and Energy policy on our own.
Charter of Fundamental Rights puts definite and real limits on that power
4) Greater involvement of national parliaments in EU decision making – while ours will continue to be useless, some of the other democracies may alert them to relevant points.
5) Permanent Council President (to deal with things like the Ossetian/Gaza conflict) balances the US President’s power (or at least look that way).
6)An important new provision, sets out the values on which the European Union is founded - respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities
7) Double majority required for European Council QMV votes
8) The limitations: a) the EU will only has those powers explicitly conferred on it, all other powers remain with the Member States - the principle of conferral.
b) And the EU shall only act if and only insofar as the objective in question cannot be sufficiently achieved at Member State level - the subsidiarity principle and c)The Union shall only act to the extent necessary to achieve the objective in question - the principle of proportionality.
9) The items which are going to be decided by QMV are fairly poxy (although including sport means Bosman can be overturned) and the most important such as taxation, defence, Social Security, citizens rights, official languages, Common foreign and Security Policy, amendments to the the treaties will still require unanimous agreement from Member States before any changes can be made.
10. Justice & Home Affairs
The Treaty provides a new 'emergency brake' arrangement. This allows a member state to prevent any criminal law measure that it considers would affect fundamental aspect of its legal system from being adopted. This arrangement was agreed during Ireland's Presidency in 2004. Ireland's legal system is different from that of EU partners. Because of this we have availed of an opt-in/opt-out arrangement that will allow us to join any new arrangement being made on a case-by-case basis.

[ibis]

There isn't one, but there isn't really any positive message for Ireland as an entity in the Treaty.

The Government needs to stop focusing on what the Treaty means for Ireland, and start talking about what it means for Europe, where it can point to positives.

Ireland is after all in Europe.

There is plenty of positive material in the Treaty for Irish citizens - even for those who dislike the EU. Let me offer you a diagram that summarises the additional input for the citizen into the EU under Lisbon:



The dashed stuff only happens under Lisbon. You're gaining one additional direct route for opposing EU legislation (the Charter), one indirect route for opposing it (the national parliament 'red card'), and one direct route for requesting (the citizens' initiative), plus an increase in the ability of the EUP (and thus your MEP) to both propose and oppose legislation.

By the way, the reason the citizen is shown as the "man at work" sign is deliberate - you have to make an effort to make democracy work.