Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

EU - vote now

Stay in the EU?

  • Yes - Stay in

    Votes: 70 65.4%
  • No - get out

    Votes: 37 34.6%

  • Total voters
    107
Course the current states are to an extent militaristic.
Don't want that written the EU though.

Ireland has been offered get-outs so it votes the "right" way and maintains the myth that all of Europe is 100% behind the establishment politicians and bureaucrats.
 
The Coir Campaign's website sets out Irish arguments against the Lisbon Treaty well.

The Irish government recently removed legislation requiring equal air time for both sides in the debate. The government is desperate for a yes vote.
 
How? Their arguments seem reasoned?

from wikipedia

Cóir[1] – Lisbon Treaty Information Campaign are a eurosceptic lobby group set up to campaign against Treaty of Lisbon. It claims to be an independent group with members coming from different political backgrounds but generally more conservative than other Lisbon No vote campaigns, and include a number of people involved in pro-family social issues.[citation needed] Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin described the group as a "front organisation" of the militant pro-life group Youth Defence.[2]
 
How? Their arguments seem reasoned?

'Youth Defence' are a very nasty right-wing fundamentalist Christian group with strong links to American right-wing anti-choice groups.

Makes me wonder if America(ns) would prefer UK not to enter EU fully?

How much influence are American lobby groups/front groups bringing to bear on UK adoption of the EURO?
 
How much influence are American lobby groups/front groups bringing to bear on UK adoption of the EURO?

One of the other major lobbyists behind the last NO vote in Ireland was Declan Ganley from his lobby group called Libertas.

Some of his companies had business links with the US military and Homeland Security.

There was a huge amount controversy over where he was getting his funding.

eventually there was a European Parliament election that he ran for but wasn't successful and has disbanded from Libertas
 
from wikipedia

That doesn't make Coir religious fundamentalists, and they oppose the treaty on much more than abortion with well reasoned arguments. The Irish establishment is desperate to avoid debate on issues on which the referendum question will be based. A lot like politicians in the UK.
 
Well that's cleared that up!

(Anyway, my use of America was lazy at best, the real issue that I was trying to say to goneforlunch is that even in the free trade agreement we would still have to incorporate directives into our national law like Norway does)

We incorporate much more legislation than Norway does. Why hasn't Norway joined if being outside is such a burden?
 
That doesn't make Coir religious fundamentalists, and they oppose the treaty on much more than abortion with well reasoned arguments. The Irish establishment is desperate to avoid debate on issues on which the referendum question will be based. A lot like politicians in the UK.

i consider organisations like youth defence fundamentalist - i consider some of the fringe activities of Coir and their members to be so conservative that they can be construed as fundamentalist. yes that is probably a personal preference rather that a scientific calculation.

to say that the Irish government doesn't want a debate on Lisbon is simply not true. there has been more debate in Ireland than anywhere else.

One of the major reason cited in the last irish referendum was that people didn't undestand what they were voting on. Hence the huge investment in different forms of comminication and a second vote.

Lisbon is supported by a cross range of groups from businesses, trade unions (European Trade Union Confederation is urging a Yes vote), environmental groups (European Environmental Bureau has called for its adoption) etc etc
 
The UK runs quite a large trade deficit with the other member states. That would give the UK a major advantage in trade negotiations. They wouldn't risk those exports, would they?
Who knows? The point I was trying to make was that it is beneficial for the UK to have a say in deciding what laws are passed (and as we have so much voting power we usually get what we want).

We incorporate much more legislation than Norway does. Why hasn't Norway joined if being outside is such a burden?
Why don't you tell me?
 
Far from it, in a Lisbon Treaty referendum I'd vote no becasue of the militarism

Course the current states are to an extent militaristic.
Don't want that written the EU though.
A centralised EU military was a myth created by the Irish 'no' campaign (along with abortion laws being forced on them etc).

There's no scope (afaik) for foreign policy to be made law as it's only the Council (ie member states' governments) that decide on joint actions in this area (the Parliament can give their opinions but have no power here). The Council will decide to do something (like humanitarian missions) and use EU institutions to carry out these tasks, but they cannot set laws forcing member states to adhere unlike, for example, environmental laws.

The EU has set up a similar structure to NATO which is intended to be used for peace keeping missions (ie where America deems there is no interest and would not allow NATO to be used - basically in places where there's no oil etc) but this isn't compulsory of course and countries who want to remain neutral can do so (that's even written into the Lisbon Treaty now for the sake of countering the myth that Ireland would be forced to take part in military operations!)
 
We incorporate much more legislation than Norway does. Why hasn't Norway joined if being outside is such a burden?

Probably a similar reason that Iceland did not want to join. Norway has it;s oil and Iceland it's fish stocks.

It was not until Iceland found itself completely fucked that it was so keen to join the EU.
 
What about countries like Bosnia and Croaita though? Is there any sense to incorporating them into the EU?

The benefits for them are massive, for us much less clear.

Better to solidify the current posistion or to expand further? Personally for the time being I think the EU is large enough.
 
What about countries like Bosnia and Croaita though? Is there any sense to incorporating them into the EU?

The benefits for them are massive, for us much less clear.

Better to solidify the current posistion or to expand further? Personally for the time being I think the EU is large enough.
Heh I recall one Polish MEP (iirc) mooting allowing Israel and Palestine to join as a solution to ending the conflict there!
 
Course the current states are to an extent militaristic.
Don't want that written the EU though.

Ireland has been offered get-outs so it votes the "right" way and maintains the myth that all of Europe is 100% behind the establishment politicians and bureaucrats.

The opt outs the Irish have been offered are just politicians platitudes, not one jot of the actual Treaty has actually been changed to accommodate the Irish concept of neutrality. Still it hasn't got through Gemany yet.

The EU isn't great value for money and has a number of flaws, but I'd rather be a part of it than not. Plus this money is chump change in the govts overall budget...and as a nation we make far more from trade in the EU than we spend on contributions...
You miss understand the nature of things in more austere times, £6 billion isn't chump change next to the difficult decisions individual government departments will be forced to make: how much is EU membership worth against housing benefit cuts or public sector final salary pensions for example.
And we'd continue to make a load in trade if we withdrew from the EU and stayed/joined in EFTA. The markets for our goods aren't going to disappear if we withdraw.
 
What about countries like Bosnia and Croaita though? Is there any sense to incorporating them into the EU?

The benefits for them are massive, for us much less clear.

Better to solidify the current posistion or to expand further? Personally for the time being I think the EU is large enough.


For me one of the main reason I support Lisbon is that countries like Bosnia can join. the current treaties limit the possibility for further expansion.

I think it's a stain on our collective conscience that the EU stood by and let genocide happen on our doorstep, had our head up our arse and had to let the US come in with their military and sort shit out.

If European integration can provide the same stability for that region that it did for germany/france etc after WW2 I think we should push the integration forward as fast as possible.
 
Indeed, the German left has been campaigning against Lisbon becasue of its militarism. The implementation of Lisbon has been delayed in Germany becasue of an intervention of the German Left Party in the country's constitutional court. It isn't an Irish thing alone.

And whether or not I'd rely on trade union bureaucrats looking for a seat in corporate government to defend the interests of the working class is another matter...........
 
in terms of security / military this is the article that is causing so much fuss

Article 28A.7
if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation".
 
i consider organisations like youth defence fundamentalist - i consider some of the fringe activities of Coir and their members to be so conservative that they can be construed as fundamentalist. yes that is probably a personal preference rather that a scientific calculation.

Fair enough, but Coir is not running for any kind of office and its arguments are still well reasoned.
to say that the Irish government doesn't want a debate on Lisbon is simply not true. there has been more debate in Ireland than anywhere else.

But not because the Irish establishment wanted it, and it is true. The government has ruled that each side is not entitled to equal air time, because it seems, equal air time does not allow a balanced debate.

Jim O’Keeffe, of Fine Gael, explains: “The forthcoming referendum on children’s rights had cross-party support, but the policy of giving equal airtime to both sides in a referendum debate could result in a group such as ‘a paedophile association’ being given 50 per cent coverage.” Do you really think he thinks the Irish people would be swayed by the arguments of paedophilia groups?

One of the major reason cited in the last irish referendum was that people didn't undestand what they were voting on. Hence the huge investment in different forms of comminication and a second vote.

Without allowing equal time for both arguments, you're proposing nothing more than a propaganda exercise.

Lisbon is supported by a cross range of groups from businesses, trade unions (European Trade Union Confederation is urging a Yes vote), environmental groups (European Environmental Bureau has called for its adoption) etc etc

And the government and their supporters found this out in surveys they had commissioned. Ignorant bog trotters, eh? As one Irish Times commentator put it at after the referendum, [now archived behind a conscription wall] "while in a democracy one should never discount minority views, the outcome of the Lisbon referendum does raise questions about Ireland’s constitutional status as a representative democracy". Are we clear on that? It was the outcome which was wrong; if the voters had voted in favour of the treaty, all would have been well.

Money certainly talks in referendums. The Irish division of the American based multinational, Intel, has publicly declared its supports for the Lisbon Treaty, with a full page ad in the Irish Times. Sucking up to the EU no doubt over its anti-trust ruling.

Lisbon is also opposed by a broad range of groups, left and right. It doesn't make either side's view *right* until the Irish people cast their votes.
 
Who knows? The point I was trying to make was that it is beneficial for the UK to have a say in deciding what laws are passed (and as we have so much voting power we usually get what we want).

In what sense do we have so much power? Like every other member state we don't have anything like enough of a majority in any of the EU's institutions to get what we want, unless we want the same as the majority.
 
Probably a similar reason that Iceland did not want to join. Norway has it;s oil and Iceland it's fish stocks.

It was not until Iceland found itself completely fucked that it was so keen to join the EU.

In spite of being 'completely fucked' Iceland's people are not keen to join the EU, though Iceland's politicians seem to differ. And we also have assets to protect. We also had some of the world's richest fishing grounds before we entered the so called Common Market and they became a community resource.
 
I voted "no" as I believe in national sovereignty, and no country that lets a foreign organisation write a bucketload of its laws can call itself sovereign. (National sovereignty is also the reason I opposed the Iraq and Afghan wars, incidentally.)

If we're really the fourth largest trading economy in the world -- and I have my doubts -- then we should be able to play hardball with Europe. If we're not, then we should still be big enough to go it on our own.

The argument that we want a say in how EU law is formed is flawed for the reasons given above (we're now a tiny minority in the EU) and also because, outside the EU, we wouldn't have to obey EU directives that effect domestic matters. On this logic we shouldn't be able to trade with the USA, Australia, Japan, or any other country outside the Euro-block.
 
In what sense do we have so much power? Like every other member state we don't have anything like enough of a majority in any of the EU's institutions to get what we want, unless we want the same as the majority.
We have a much bigger share of the vote (in both legislatures but obviously in the Parliament politics comes into it a lot more) than the majority of countries (I think we are joint second with France after Germany who has the biggest population). That means the UK's voice is heard louder the most other countries and naturally we have a bigger say in the laws that are passed. Also, if we team up with France and Germany on a partiulcar issue it's very hard for anyone else to get their own way (good for us, bad for them)
 
In spite of being 'completely fucked' Iceland's people are not keen to join the EU, though Iceland's politicians seem to differ. And we also have assets to protect. We also had some of the world's richest fishing grounds before we entered the so called Common Market and they became a community resource.
I think Iceland's attitude towards the EU changed drastically after they pissed our local council's savings up the wall!
 
We have a much bigger share of the vote (in both legislatures but obviously in the Parliament politics comes into it a lot more) than the majority of countries (I think we are joint second with France after Germany who has the biggest population). That means the UK's voice is heard louder the most other countries and naturally we have a bigger say in the laws that are passed. Also, if we team up with France and Germany on a partiulcar issue it's very hard for anyone else to get their own way (good for us, bad for them)
How long will this go on for? It's both unfair and unsustainable, and newer countries will keep up pressure for the extension of "qualified majority voting" and so on.

If our position in Europe relies on us having unjust privileges, it's a mighty shaky argument!
 
How long will this go on for? It's both unfair and unsustainable, and newer countries will keep up pressure for the extension of "qualified majority voting" and so on.

If our position in Europe relies on us having unjust privileges, it's a mighty shaky argument!
Well it's gradually gone that way, not going towards 'equality' (each time the voting rules change they've gone more towards giving the bigger countries extra power - or more specifically voting strength has gone towards populations). I think the smaller countries kinda accept it due to the economic rewards the EU gives them plus the bigger burden for the budget falls on the bigger countries.
 
Fair enough, but Coir is not running for any kind of office and its arguments are still well reasoned.


how can lies and untruths be a reasoned argument?

case in point

k3u0d2.jpg
 
I voted "no" as I believe in national sovereignty, and no country that lets a foreign organisation write a bucketload of its laws can call itself sovereign. (National sovereignty is also the reason I opposed the Iraq and Afghan wars, incidentally.)

What exactly do you mean by sovereignty? Can you explain it in the context of what has been happening since Ireland joined the EU?

Also, did you know that the Lisbon treaty, for the first time in any treaty, provides the mechanisms by which a member state can leave the EU???

so, by voting NO you are voting away the thing that you (probably) want :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom