Lisbon Treaty Referendum in Ireland (Again)

[8den]

On a day when it's been revealed that BaE systems faces bribery allegations, Vincent Browne's points about the role of the EDA are particularly cogent:

http://politico.ie/index.php?option...urope-to-vote-no&catid=40:politics&Itemid=705

No sorry, it's not like we have an arms industry of any real size, citing BaE as a reason to vote no doesn't make sense. We're not going to be liable or infulencing the sales policy of a british company if Lisbon is or isn't ratified.

 

[Idris2002]

And I've not seen a compelling argument citing the part of the treaty that clearly explains this.



No it doesn't. No more than current, and our neutrality, and right to decide our neutrality is still enshrined as a national decision. Ireland has a proud history of providing peace keepers willing, and generously around the world, nothing will change, and we won't be spending any more on our defence forces.

1. Joe H. on Lisbon and worker's rights:

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/09/10/joe-higgins-mep-lisbon-workers-rights/

2. Ireland does indeed have a proud history of sending out peacekeepers, but that was in another era. The current incarnation of 'humanitarian intervention' is, IMO, a far more ambiguous phenomenon -one which all too often hides motives for intervention which are rather more cynical than the advertised humanitarianism. And I find it improbable that a state could sign a treaty to 'enhance its military capacity' and then not increase defence spending. And even if Ireland isn't affected, we still shouldn't vote for a treaty which seeks an enhanced arms trade.

 

[8den]

1. Joe H. on Lisbon and worker's rights:

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/09/10/joe-higgins-mep-lisbon-workers-rights/

Respectfully Higgins argument is that the Lisbon treaty doesn't do enough to defend workers rights. He's looking at the vague language of the treaty, and interpreting it in his own way. There's nothing concrete or specific in the treaty that suggests Irish workers will be worse off because of Lisbon. It won't affect minimum wages, pensions or workers rights, collective bargaining or the right to strike.

2. Ireland does indeed have a proud history of sending out peacekeepers, but that was in another era. The current incarnation of 'humanitarian intervention' is, IMO, a far more ambiguous phenomenon -one which all too often hides motives for intervention which are rather more cynical than the advertised humanitarianism. And I find it improbable that a state could sign a treaty to 'enhance its military capacity' and then not increase defence spending.

It's an incredibly vague term though. Enchance as in how? Improved training? Working with other EU states in specific areas. It certainly doesn't state that we have to increase our spending by X % or Y amount of Euros.

And even if Ireland isn't affected, we still shouldn't vote for a treaty which seeks an enhanced arms trade.

Nothing in the treaty means we're going to start making guns or bombs or anything of the sort.

 

[Idris2002]

Respectfully Higgins argument is that the Lisbon treaty doesn't do enough to defend workers rights. He's looking at the vague language of the treaty, and interpreting it in his own way. There's nothing concrete or specific in the treaty that suggests Irish workers will be worse off because of Lisbon. It won't affect minimum wages, pensions or workers rights, collective bargaining or the right to strike.



It's an incredibly vague term though. Enchance as in how? Improved training? Working with other EU states in specific areas. It certainly doesn't state that we have to increase our spending by X % or Y amount of Euros.



Nothing in the treaty means we're going to start making guns or bombs or anything of the sort.

In response to your last point: there are already Irish firms that make parts (electronic switches for example) that go into weapons systems once they're exported. And I didn't say that 'we' were going to be making bombs and guns, my point was that this treaty means that *somewhere in Europe* there will be a new and aggressive military-industrial complex, one whose creation deserves to be opposed.

I read the language in both of the other points you're responding to as being quite clear. And in relation to workers rights, the provisions of the treaty open a 'race to the bottom'. That doesn't mean that the Irish minimum wage will be slashed to 1.84 as those Coir bastards (and they are bastards claim). It just means that the strong will be made stronger, and will be in a stronger position to dictate terms.

 

[8den]

In response to your last point: there are already Irish firms that make parts (electronic switches for example) that go into weapons systems once they're exported. And I didn't say that 'we' were going to be making bombs and guns, my point was that this treaty means that *somewhere in Europe* there will be a new and aggressive military-industrial complex, one whose creation deserves to be opposed.

I really don't see it that way. Things like the Euro fighter prove that major European wide arms schemes are going to be massive white elephants. Meanwhile more co ordination and cooperation between EU military force could mean a reduction in waste and duplication. For example the Czech army have excellent bomb disposal units, we could easily learn alot from each other.

I read the language in both of the other points you're responding to as being quite clear. And in relation to workers rights, the provisions of the treaty open a 'race to the bottom'. That doesn't mean that the Irish minimum wage will be slashed to 1.84 as those Coir bastards (and they are bastards claim). It just means that the strong will be made stronger, and will be in a stronger position to dictate terms.

I really don't see it that way, it's just that some people are annoyed that it doesn't enshrine workers rights in cast iron.

I'm Irish I live in the UK, and I'm not a dyed in the wool Yes voter, I'm just annoyed at the lies and deception of some on the No side. I've heard NWO conspiracy theories, claims about militarisation, abortion etc, and it annoys the living shit out of me. If they can't create an honest rational argument against the treaty then they shouldn't be arguing about it either way. I saw a flcker photo of a handmade Sinner sign on Parnell St, claiming that Irish kids will be conscripted to fight in Afghanistan if the Yes campaign wins.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Considering the no campaign consists of Coir (youth defence, right wing catholic pro lifers) Libertas (Run by a lunatic pro business arms dealer) Sinn Fein (who've pretty much opposed every referendum on Europe), and an assorted fringe on the far right and left.

This is misleading.

The No campaign has the support of about 200 elected representatives. Every TD, former TD, MEP or Councillor on the No side supports the main No campaign, the Campaign Against the EU Consitution (or Vote No to Lisbon as its now called). So to do 95% plus of the activists on the No side.

CAEUC consists essentially of every party to the left of Labour, chiefly Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party but also the smaller left groups, plus some campaign groups like the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, the Irish Anti-War Movement and the People's Movement (which includes the various former Greens who stand by that parties traditional stance on the EU).

At the same time, every party and political group from Labour on rightwards supports Lisbon. This includes Labour, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Greens along with the entire business elite, from IBEC and ISME to the American multi-nationals, and almost the entire media. There are two exceptions to this rule - Libertas, which is essentially the staff of a single rich businessman, and Cóir, a small group of Catholic fanatics.

As for reasons to oppose Lisbon, aside from the workers rights issue, it makes the privatisation of health and education easier, further institutionalises the market as the economic organising principle of the union and encourages militarisation. On that last point, as well as furthering the European armaments industry through the EDA it contains a specific provision that each country is to progressively improve its military capacity (ie more armaments spending and greater military coordination). This is not wild exaggeration or "lies and deception", it is in the treaty.

By contrast I am yet to hear one single, solitary, good reason to vote Yes. All the Yes side has been able to come up with is a series of hysterical attempts to link a Yes vote to jobs and a recovery. Which is pretty cheeky given that the Yes side includes both the business elite and the political elite who are jointly responsible for much of our economic woes.

 

[weltweit]

Thats simple not true.

But the Lisbon treaty doesn't do that. It's because of a poorly worded section of the Irish constitution that's the only reason Ireland is voting on this.

Then you'd be voting against it for the wrong reasons.

I'll bet you a hundred quid that there will never been a UK referendum on Lisbon. No matter who's in charge.

One of the "No" arguments is that the treaty is "too complex". Fucking duh. It's a complex legal document streamlining arrangements between 26 countries with a couple of dozen languages. If it wasn't complex I'd worry.

I think it is a valid argument if you are against greater EU scope that you should vote NO.

I am for the European Free Market, I am broadly for the social chapter, I am pretty much for european standardisation, the CE mark for example which was a good thing but also a bit protectionist in effect.

But I am not for a United States of Europe.


eta: if I was richer I would take your bet!

 

[8den]

This is misleading.

The No campaign has the support of about 200 elected representatives.

Thats a seriously misleading endorsement of the No campaign. We're massively over subscribed in terms of TDs and CC, we've got one of the most pointlessly over represented population in the world.

Every TD, former TD, MEP or Councillor on the No side supports the main No campaign, the Campaign Against the EU Consitution (or Vote No to Lisbon as its now called). So to do 95% plus of the activists on the No side.

And you'd agree that many (if not most) of your "200" are going to be Ex Greens, Sinners, single issue candidates like hysterical right wing pro catholic lunatics like Dana?

CAEUC consists essentially of every party to the left of Labour, chiefly Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party but also the smaller left groups, plus some campaign groups like the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, the Irish Anti-War Movement and the People's Movement (which includes the various former Greens who stand by that parties traditional stance on the EU).

Yes the marginal left wing parties make up a part of the no campaign. Incidently could you call a spade a spade and admit that the IAWM is just a SWP front?

At the same time, every party and political group from Labour on rightwards supports Lisbon. This includes Labour, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Greens along with the entire business elite, from IBEC and ISME to the American multi-nationals, and almost the entire media. There are two exceptions to this rule - Libertas, which is essentially the staff of a single rich businessman, and Cóir, a small group of Catholic fanatics.

You're flat out contradicting yourself, how can the "entire" business elite be for a Yes vote, while at the same time can Libertas be the work of one rich businessman?

As for reasons to oppose Lisbon, aside from the workers rights issue, it makes the privatisation of health and education easier,

I'm sorry I've heard this argument countless times, but how exactly will Lisbon make it that we will have private health care and education?

further institutionalises the market as the economic organising principle of the union and encourages militarisation. On that last point, as well as furthering the European armaments industry through the EDA it contains a specific provision that each country is to progressively improve its military capacity (ie more armaments spending and greater military coordination). This is not wild exaggeration or "lies and deception", it is in the treaty.

No sorry, exactly where does it say we're going to GI Joe up our army?

By contrast I am yet to hear one single, solitary, good reason to vote Yes. All the Yes side has been able to come up with is a series of hysterical attempts to link a Yes vote to jobs and a recovery. Which is pretty cheeky given that the Yes side includes both the business elite and the political elite who are jointly responsible for much of our economic woes.

This is an absolutely fair point, neither side has been above using mindless fearmongering as their first argument. Outrageous lies have been spread by both sides in this debate. Much of the yes argument has been fearmongering about the dangerous of pissing off europe, and even vincent browne's rebutal is we should vote no in protest at this nasty scaremongering. Neither of these points are a compelling or reasonable argument for either position.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Thats a seriously misleading endorsement of the No campaign. We're massively over subscribed in terms of TDs and CC, we've got one of the most pointlessly over represented population in the world.

It's not an endorsement. It's a description of the actual balance of forces. Every elected representative on the No side - all 200 of them - are affiliated with CAEUC, an explicitly left wing campaigning body. Lisbon is a straightforward left - right issue, with everyone to the left of Labour calling for a No vote and everyone to the right with a handful of exceptions for a No vote. That's true at the level of elected representatives, with 200 for the republican and socialist campaigns against 0 for the miniscule right wing campaigns and it's true in terms of activists on the ground. Libertas have none of those, Coir a handful, and the various CAEUC affiliates all of them.

And you'd agree that many (if not most) of your "200" are going to be Ex Greens, Sinners, single issue candidates like hysterical right wing pro catholic lunatics like Dana?

The 200 are made up of Sinn Fein elected representatives, plus those of the Socialist Party, People Before Profit Alliance and the Workers Party, along with some ex-Greens, a few dissident Labour Party councillors and some independents. The independents are a mixed bunch but do not include Catholic Right types as, perhaps surprisingly, Ireland doesn't actually elect such people as independent councillors very often. They tend to be elected as FF or FG backwoodsmen. Dana is not an elected representative and hasn't been for some time.

Incidently could you call a spade a spade and admit that the IAWM is just a SWP front?

Admit?

You're flat out contradicting yourself, how can the "entire" business elite be for a Yes vote, while at the same time can Libertas be the work of one rich businessman?

Ganley is of interest because he is practically the only member of the business elite calling for a No vote.

Every other business figure who has expressed an opinion is for the Yes side, as are Ryanair, Intel, Pfizer, IBEC, ISME, the Small Firms Association, the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland (ie the multi-nationals), the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Cork Chamber of Commerce and quite literally dozens of other smaller business bodies. Each of Intel and Ryanair, two of the most viciously anti-union employers in Ireland, are spending more on campaigning for a Yes vote than the entire No side put together will be spending.

The Business elite is all but unanimously pushing for a Yes vote, just like our political establishment and our media.

I'm sorry I've heard this argument countless times, but how exactly will Lisbon make it that we will have private health care and education?

It removes the national veto on the issue of "liberalisation" of these "markets". That doesn't in and of itself mean that privatisation will happen but it makes it harder for us to pressure our government into vetoing futher liberalisation measures, or if we (or some other European country) manages to elect an anti-privatisation government it means that they won't be able to exercise a veto on these issues.

No sorry, exactly where does it say we're going to GI Joe up our army?

Article 42. "Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."

 

[Idris2002]

This is misleading.

The No campaign has the support of about 200 elected representatives. Every TD, former TD, MEP or Councillor on the No side supports the main No campaign, the Campaign Against the EU Consitution (or Vote No to Lisbon as its now called). So to do 95% plus of the activists on the No side.

CAEUC consists essentially of every party to the left of Labour, chiefly Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party but also the smaller left groups, plus some campaign groups like the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, the Irish Anti-War Movement and the People's Movement (which includes the various former Greens who stand by that parties traditional stance on the EU).

At the same time, every party and political group from Labour on rightwards supports Lisbon. This includes Labour, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Greens along with the entire business elite, from IBEC and ISME to the American multi-nationals, and almost the entire media. There are two exceptions to this rule - Libertas, which is essentially the staff of a single rich businessman, and Cóir, a small group of Catholic fanatics.

As for reasons to oppose Lisbon, aside from the workers rights issue, it makes the privatisation of health and education easier, further institutionalises the market as the economic organising principle of the union and encourages militarisation. On that last point, as well as furthering the European armaments industry through the EDA it contains a specific provision that each country is to progressively improve its military capacity (ie more armaments spending and greater military coordination). This is not wild exaggeration or "lies and deception", it is in the treaty.

By contrast I am yet to hear one single, solitary, good reason to vote Yes. All the Yes side has been able to come up with is a series of hysterical attempts to link a Yes vote to jobs and a recovery. Which is pretty cheeky given that the Yes side includes both the business elite and the political elite who are jointly responsible for much of our economic woes.

Fucking spot on, Nigel.

 

[Bolshevik]

Idris2002 makes the valid comment about the "race to the bottom" in terms of workers pay and conditions - "If this is not stopped, the likely end will be to erode working class living standards in ways that will reinforce the audience for chauvinist and racist politics all over Europe, while the capitalists count their dirty money."

There is absolutely no basis for voting YES - that would be an endorsement of this visciously anti-working class Europe.

I still think that the best way to get across our opposition to the bosses attacks is the "spoiled ballot" position as it avoids the implication that what we have already is in some way qualitatively better for workers than a Europe with Lisbon ratified - which is clearly not the case.

The outcome of this referendum will make no difference to our ability to struggle or in-of-itself limit or enhance the bosses' ability to attack our pay and condidtions.

Whether you vote NO or spoil your ballot the key will be to organise to fight back against the attacks whatever the result.

 

[dennisr]

It removes the national veto on the issue of "liberalisation" of these "markets". That doesn't in and of itself mean that privatisation will happen but it makes it harder for us to pressure our government into vetoing futher liberalisation measures, or if we (or some other European country) manages to elect an anti-privatisation government it means that they won't be able to exercise a veto on these issues.

Spot on, as ever. And the result of that is the sort of thing we have seen in the UK - with the resulting Lindsey dispute where a multinational moves groups of non-unionised workers around europe in an attempt to undermine conditions fought for and agreed in the past with the unionised workforce they replace. it has also happened in other EU countries - Sweden where a test case was taken to the courts but lost for example.

And in Ireland - the sort of abuse that went on with the GAMA workers - ripped off by their bosses, kept in site camps away from local workers and a multinational bringing in cheaper labour that replaces local labour and undermines all workers as a result - it all becomes enshrined in the 'law' of the treaty.

Here in the UK we have had the points made by the recent No2EU campaign - that european liberalisation law results in forced privatisation - compolsary competitive tendering, compolsary PFI etc, etc - in the illusory name of 'competition'. An attack on the existing conditions of working people - that's what the Lisbon treaty represents. That's what the the need to oppose the 'race to the bottom' means in concrete terms

 

[Bolshevik]

All true but we need to be careful about expecting anything positive per se to come out of another rejection of Lisbon. Last year's No vote didn't seem to make any noticable difference to either the bosses willingness to attack us or our ability to fight back. The main problems for working class militancy remains the "social partnership" perspective of the trade union leaders and the low level of unionisation.

 

[dennisr]

All true but we need to be careful about expecting anything positive per se to come out of another rejection of Lisbon. Last year's No vote didn't seem to make any noticable difference to either the bosses willingness to attack us or our ability to fight back. The main problems for working class militancy remains the "social partnership" perspective of the trade union leaders and the low level of unionisation.

I don't see the point in trying to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs.

NI's points and his organisation's willingness to engage with the existing opportunities - no matter how limited the electoral referendum may be - is not seperate from a strategy of building that fightback against bosses attacks. After all, the SP in Ireland played the central role, alongside the GAMA workers, in the defeat of the GAMA bosses and its sister organisation in the UK played a central role, including among the leadership of those workers, in the defeat of the attacks on the Lindsey workers and the continuing tu guerilla campaign that has come from that initial impulse (and clearly against the bankrupt 'social partnership' style tu 'leaders' as a direct result) .

The electoral engagement presently taking place is not separate from the building of real - as opposed to academic - opposition to all of the obvious points you make. That is where the comments you have made previously - on ignoring the ballot - separate you from the rest of us. For you it is all academic slogans on bulletin boards rather than concrete proposals, tactics and strategies that genuinely engage the working people of Ireland. They want concrete alternatives to the problems they face rather than slogans (...I'm guessing...)

 

[dennisr]

bolshevik schmolshevik

 

[Bolshevik]

Actually you know nothing about my activities on the ground in Cork trying to organise defence against the attacks already in place and those about to come so this is a pretty cheap shot which misses its target.

But if putting the emphasis on organising that concrete defence and downplaying the significance of this vote in-of-itself separates me from the other posters in this discussion then sobeit.

Of course it is not a question of complete separation of the No vote campaign from organising defence against the attacks - indeed I am working with the SP, and other supporters of a No vote, in the Cork United Alliance Against Cuts towards this very aim.

However IMHO the No vote campaign has shown too much of a softness on nationalist reformist solutions to our problems as a class (only the WSM's material, to their credit, has avoided this problem) and I remain convinced that a "spoiled ballot" tactic would have been better as the actual vote is completely secondary to building htat fightback.

There is a tendency here to say that a Yes vote and ratification of the treaty is going to be a huge set-back for the workers' movement and I think it is very important not to take that kind of defeatist attitude to something that won't actually change things very much at all.

Conversly the examples of the "race to the bottom" that the SP give are all things that have happened before, and without, Lisbon - the idea that a No vote and the failure to ratify Lisbon would somehow in-of-itself stop, or limit, that race to the bottom is a very dangerous illusion.

 

[weltweit]

When will we know?

 

[Bolshevik]

Polling booths close at 10pm tonight and counting of the votes starts at 9am tomorrow so the result will be sometime tomorrow evening I would guess.

 

[dennisr]

Actually you know nothing about my activities on the ground in Cork trying to organise defence against the attacks already in place and those about to come so this is a pretty cheap shot which misses its target.

With all due respect the shot was not cheap - I spent quite a while typing in that reply

To be frank the cheap - and kind of pointless in practice - shots have been entirely yours - and you continue them in your reply above. Illusions would only be created if the organisations you are strongly implying reinforce such illusions were working on this issue in a vacuam. As you know they are not.

No funnily enough i don't know what you are doing in Cork - not sure I care much.

 

[Bolshevik]

What "shots" have I made?

I've presented a different perspective that is all.

I don't think the result of this vote will make any practical difference in the bosses ability to attack us or our ability to defend ourselves and fight back. Given that I therefore think a "spoiled ballot" tactic makes more sense.

I think the No campaign (with the exception of the WSM) has tended to slip into a reformist diversion of giving this vote on the technical details of how bosses rule us too much weight and that has necessarily lead to a something of a loss of focus on organising the class struggle.

And a cheap shot to finish - I'm not surprised you don't care about my practical activity in Cork as what you are really concerned about is this result of this bourgois referendum...

 

[Biglittlefish]

I fucking hate this vote. What was that quote from some random dub in the economist after Lisbon 1. 'I didn't vote for it cas it was for abortions and gayness' Jesus wept.

First time round when I took a serious look at the treaty I decided to vote no as it didn't seem to succeed in its aims. Now I can't even remember what the aims were!

I'm strongly inclined to vote yes just because of the unreal bullshit spouted by the no people.

 

[dennisr]

What was that quote from some random dub in the economist after Lisbon 1..

Ah, yes, the economist, a neutral voice of reason in an unreasonable world

 

[Bolshevik]

Biglittlefish - and you believe the bullshit being spouted by the Yes side????

 

[8den]

Biglittlefish - and you believe the bullshit being spouted by the Yes side????

Compared to your bullshit?

Idris2002 makes the valid comment about the "race to the bottom" in terms of workers pay and conditions - "If this is not stopped, the likely end will be to erode working class living standards in ways that will reinforce the audience for chauvinist and racist politics all over Europe, while the capitalists count their dirty money."

I'm sorry could point out the specific parts in the Lisbon treaty that rescind women's rights, and reinforce racist politics.

Don't forget what it was like before we joined the EU. Since joining the EU we get free movement of labour across Europe, suddenly you're now claiming the Lisbon treaty will restrict this? Really? Where? How?

There is literally NO substantive arguments against the treaty in any of your points, you cannot point out a single piece or part of the treaty that you object to and make a coherent argument against it. You have empty rhetoric, without substantive points.

This is my major gripe with both sides, an utter lack of discussion of the ramification of the treaty's passing and just hysterical generalised claims and fearmongering.


To give another example for sake of balance, a friend sent this to me yesterday

GUH ladies vote yes and you can be like the four birds from sex and the city. Neither side can seem to treat the electorate as anything more that simple minded gibbering morons.

 

[8den]

I also like Shinners who had an active paramilitary wing just a few years ago, are worried about an over militarised Europe.

 

[8den]

Some other "no" posters for the sake of balance

Neither side seems capable of rational discussion of the treaty and prefer hysterical scaremongering and infantile arguments, it makes me despair for the entire political process in my homeland.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Looks like they've voted Yes. Well done Ireland.

 

[weltweit]

But Ireland already voted NO ......


Repeating the ballot until they vote the way wanted by the great and good is no more than a swindle!

 

[8den]

But Ireland already voted NO ......


Repeating the ballot until they vote the way wanted by the great and good is no more than a swindle!

The where some significant changes made to treaty, and what, 3 million people can hold up the entire EU?

You seem to pretty antagonist to the entire concept of the EU WW, don't let your ignorance and prejudiced completely colour your opinion.

We had several referendums on divorce before it went through, should we have let the first divorce referendum stand for all time? Idiot.

 

[weltweit]

The where some significant changes made to treaty, and what, 3 million people can hold up the entire EU?

It isn't me that made the rules !

You seem to pretty antagonist to the entire concept of the EU WW, don't let your ignorance and prejudiced completely colour your opinion.

I am pro EU, I have personally benefitted by the free market, have worked in other EU countries and my former partner does now. Our child is a European!!

But I am not for a United States of Europe, nor for a common defence force.

We had several referendums on divorce before it went through, should we have let the first divorce referendum stand for all time? Idiot.

Less of the insults please, it's not really necessary is it?