How can Lisbon II be defeated.

[Watcher1]

Who should be the main voices? You mention the word democratic in your post regardless of the fact that the main players on the 'No' side last time were never democratically elected and had vested interests to put it mildly. And then the same 'No' side crib about their democratic rights being eroding by a lack of respect for the referendum result.

When you talk about the main voices here it is fair to say that these voices should be political ones i.e. those who have been elected democratically and have no immediate vested interests. Anything less is unacceptable. Libertas tried it the democratic way but didn't cut it - not only in Ireland but in Europe generally.

The government and the opposition agree on very little these days so I think that when they actually agree on something it's a pretty safe bet. And I also make the point that Labour, as populist as they are, vowed not to support a second Lisbon treaty but something tells me that they're not going to live up to that vow.

That leaves Sinn Fein as the only credible, democratically elected 'voice' on the 'No' side. So good luck with that...

I dont see why, for a referendum, the only voices that should be heard are those of a democratically elected group. Most of the democratically elected groups were all in favour of Lisbon so by your logic, we would not have heard the no side (except for a small minority of democratically elected groups with a small voice and following).

I also dont believe that just because the government and most of the opposition are in favour of Lisbon that it is necessarily a good thing for the citizenry. I am very dubious of the benefits of Lisbon for us, the people. What exactly is in it for the politicians? Dick Roche already admitted during the last referendum campaign that since Nice, "Europe" has become 25% more efficient. The Irish government, for many, many years, even before Nice, could not keep up with everything that was coming out of Brussels and have been reprimanded on a number of issues because of it. This fuels my scepticsism as to their motivations. I actually believe that they will use Lisbon and Europe to side step even more responsibility if Lisbon is passed. This would defintely be a bad thing for this country and its peoples.

I am voting No again.

[Watcher1]

Fixed that for you.

It's amusing that some of the No voters here are proclaiming Lisbon to be a move to a facist/coporatist/socialist EU, both because of the contradictory nature of the claims and because of the fact that the majority of opposition is coming from extremes similar to those claims, i.e. the far right and far left elements.

If the EU were going down a socialist route FT why is the Socialist Party opposed to it? It's amazing how full of crap you really are. Your opinion doesn't even have to be consistant.

As for Yes slogans:

Socialists, Sinn Fein and dodgy right-wing business men. Do you trust them?

The No side want to deny you the right to vote. Say Yes to Democracy.

Don't think that shower are fit to represent you? <insert Libertas logo beneath>

The EU has given us millions. What have the Socialists, Sinn Fein or Libertas ever done for you?

Want a more efficient EU? Vote Yes.


Seeing as meaningful debate is wasted here, when in Rome....

Now THAT is stretching it. One of my main bugbears about Lisbon was that no one, other than Ireland, were given the right to vote on the treaty (although France and the Netherlands voted NO to almost the exact same document) and you are now trying to tell people that the Lisbon Treaty is pro democracy when it is plain to see that the powers that be in Europe have actaully denied their peoples their democratic right.

The yes camp are twisting the truth if you are anything to go by. Yet another reason for people to vote no.

[sarahj]

I dont see why, for a referendum, the only voices that should be heard are those of a democratically elected group. Most of the democratically elected groups were all in favour of Lisbon so by your logic, we would not have heard the no side (except for a small minority of democratically elected groups with a small voice and following).

I also dont believe that just because the government and most of the opposition are in favour of Lisbon that it is necessarily a good thing for the citizenry. I am very dubious of the benefits of Lisbon for us, the people. What exactly is in it for the politicians? Dick Roche already admitted during the last referendum campaign that since Nice, "Europe" has become 25% more efficient. The Irish government, for many, many years, even before Nice, could not keep up with everything that was coming out of Brussels and have been reprimanded on a number of issues because of it. This fuels my scepticsism as to their motivations. I actually believe that they will use Lisbon and Europe to side step even more responsibility if Lisbon is passed. This would defintely be a bad thing for this country and its peoples.

I am voting No again.

Brilliant post!

On the efficiency topic - "efficiency" in politics just means that more decisions are centralised and thus made more efficiently.

It seems that efficiency is at odds with democracy. Democracy is messy and inefficient, but it's what we want and need.

[Watcher1]

Just thought I add this little bit of info into the fisheries debate raised by FT. Not that I think he'll listen or respond given his history of high-tailing it at the first sign of provable facts....

Have a look at this site.

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B2...oflandings.pdf

Basically it reckons that on average there is €460m worth taken from the Irish EEZ annually (since 1973) and €800m from around Ireland. We already take 28% within the EEZ and 15% outside. So annually we "lose" approx €331m within the EEZ but we can assume (I think anyway) that we would take in around the same equivalent outside the EEZ. So over 35 years that would be just over €11.5 billion we have lost in the fishing industry. That in itself assumes we would have had the ability to land all that fish ourselves in that time period also, which we wouldn't have been able to do, but even still lets just assume we could and work with this inflated figure.

We got €1.4 billion from the EU in 2005 alone FFS (Ireland received net income of €1.4 billion from the European Union in 2005 - Per capita income of €350 highest of pre-May 2004 EU15)!

Up to 2002 we were net beneficiaries to the tune of over €34 billion (Ireland European Union/EU Cash Benefits, Receipts, Tops Per Capita Beneficiaries, Payments, Net Recipients, 1973-2003 Net EU Benefits, GNI, GDP, GNP per head : Comment Finfacts Ireland).

Given that we are still net beneficiaries (until at least 2013) it would be relatively safe to say that thus far we have received from the EU well over 3 times what we would have gotten from the fisheries industry:

Lost in Fisheries: €11.5bn

Gained in direct EU funding until 2002: €34bn
Guestimated amt gained 2003-2008 (@ avg 1bn a year): €6bn
Total Gained: €40bn

40/11.5 = approx 3.48 (this based on the exaggerated €11.5bn)

Then we need to factor in all the indirect income we have gained in terms of foreign investment (which is in part due to our Corporate Tax, but also our access to the EU markets).

So not only is your fishing industry claim completely bogus, I've also shown that membership of the EU has been an overwhelmingly positive thing for Ireland. Of course all that money was just a ploy to lull us into a false sense of security before the hand of facism (or is it socialism) comes crashing down on us, eh FT?

So what if membership has been positive? In the last number of years Ireland has given more back to the EU than most other countries especially on integration issues with the new accession countries in 2004. We were one of the few countries who threw open our borders to those new EU citizens which surely has had an extremely positive impact on the success of enlargement.

What Lisbon is trying to impose is far different to what the EU (or EEC) was orignally established to be. No one on the Yes side has convinced me that Lisbon is about anything other than making the EU an even less democratic institution or that it will bring benefits to the people of Europe. What I am convinced it will do is take accountability much further away from the people who elect the European representatives and it will give far greater power to fairly unaccountable individuals.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Bringing up EU membership itself is a distraction by the yes campaign. EU membership continues regardless. It's the gravy-train for politicians aspiring to EU patronage that is threatened. There is no mechanism for expulsion of members. You know you're being offered a raw deal when the elites talk about everything except what's in it to get you to agree to it. They don't mention the expansion of Qualified Majority Voting on the Council of Ministers, the halving of the Irish voting-strength while Germany's doubles and the French vote increases by one-third, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights turning the ECJ into a Supreme Court (particularly over asylum and immigration), oer the govt's intention to surrender the veto on Justice and Home Affairs (provisions allowing for this were contained in the Referendum Act 2008 in relation to relinquishing the Protocol with the consent of the Oireacthas but without a referendum(. Unfortunately for them, there are those willing to confront them on these issues, as well as how Lisbon would in fact worsen the recession by copperfastening plans for corporate-tax harmonisation via CCCTB and the amended Article 113 of the TFEU, which facilitates tax harmonisation to combat "distortions of competition" - a clear reference to low-tax economies like Ireland.

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

[Wakeupcall]

[evercloserunion]

Bringing up EU membership itself is a distraction by the yes campaign.

Haven't the nay-sayers on this thread been talking about making Lisbon a referendum on the government? They are now openly admitting that they are not going to focus on the Treaty but rather focus on distractions like the popularity of the government.

[sarahj]

Haven't the nay-sayers on this thread been talking about making Lisbon a referendum on the government? They are now openly admitting that they are not going to focus on the Treaty but rather focus on distractions like the popularity of the government.

Which nay-sayers?!

Some people feel the referendum should incorporate our feelings on the govt. It is a fair point but is not the opinion of all of us. The popularity or lack thereof of the govt is completely relevant to the treaty, especially given they are the ones negotiating on our behalf.

The fact that the govt seem impotent in dealing with this crisis is completely related to the EU and the fact that it has given all control of monetary policy and most of our fiscal policy to the EU. Local and national govts are now useless with the encompassing poer and influence of the EU. Even in decisions they don't have explicit control over, they exert underhanded influence (for example, they encourages the austerity measures taken in the last budgets).

We are entitled to differing opinions on why the treaty should be rejected. That's the sign of a healthy campaign - differing opinions are good!

Just like some people in the "yes" side support compulsory private health insurance, some social health insurance, etc. Some support bailing out the banks and some support letting them fail. Differing opinions aren't a problem - they are a sign of healthy debate and democracy.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Fair play to MLM on Drivetime on Radio 1 now for exposing the worthlessness of the 'guarantees', in particular the fact that Lisbon allows for the veto on taxation to be relinquished without a referendum.

[evercloserunion]

Fair play to MLM on Drivetime on Radio 1 now for exposing the worthlessness of the 'guarantees', in particular the fact that Lisbon allows for the veto on taxation to be relinquished without a referendum.

What was her reasoning, pray tell?

Of course, in Crotty the SC accepted that changing a unanimity requrement to QMV would not necessarily require a referendum, so if anything allows the veto to be relinquished without a referendum it's Crotty and not Lisbon.