Mobile Version
|
Register
|
Login
home
|
speak out!
|
content zone archives
|
"speak out!" archives
|
vote on it
|
soap opera
|
pub crawl
|
links
|
contact us
|
search
Follow us!
Speak Out! - Gaelic Games
Notices
"Speak Out!" Home
|
Topic Listing
|
Post New Topic
|
Post Reply
Yesterday's HOT topics
|
Today's HOT topics
| Jump to:
All Topics
First
1
2
Last
Select a page:
1
2
PageSize:
10
25
50
Page
1
of
2
Topic:
Arguments Against the Lisbon Treaty
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
15-Jan-2008 09:44
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
will post up a few articles on this, and will start with some socialist perspectives:
Will Ireland follow France and reject EU treaty?
Written by Kieran Allen
Thursday, 10 January 2008
The French NO vote in 2005 terrified the rulers across Europe and now they wait anxiously on the Irish vote. Party leaders Bertie Ahern, Enda Kenny, Eamonn Gilmore and John Gormley have assured them that everything will be alright on the day. But if the lessons of the French referendum are quickly learnt there could be another resounding NO.
The first is that the way to win is to fight from the left. Irish debates on the EU have focussed for too long on ‘national sovergnity’ and defending De Valera’s constitution of 1937. The No campaign should not try to re-take that rhetoric.
Instead over the next few months, the campaign needs to go to postal workers to show how the EU postal directive will affect their jobs. It should remind the families of Aer Lingus workers how the EU was used to privatise the national airline. It should alert everyone to the dangers posed to public services by the philosophy of a ‘free, undistorted market’. It should mobilise the anti-war movement to oppose the EU battle groups and not to be taken in by talk of ‘humanitarian missions’ which are a cover for power grabs.
By tapping into this enormous well of resentment and resistance, a powerful movement can be build to challenge the elite.
The zone of conflict
While Ireland was enjoying its comparatively short Celtic Tiger boom and politicians claimed ‘we’ played the globalisation game and won, Europe shifted from a zone of consensus to one of instability. Using the rhetoric about globalisation and competitiveness, the EU elite argued for the dismantling the welfare state. They tried reduce the share of the economy going to wages and social security and increase profits, CEO salaries and dividends
European workers have been resisting in their millions. There have been enormous general strikes in France, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal. The French No vote on the constitution came out of this tremendous spirit of resistance.
The opportunity to vote NO has been now been handed on to Irish workers and it comes at an important time.
Fianna Fail won the last general election because many hoped that their victory would prolong the Celtic Tiger boom. The Labour Party made it easier by giving up on any critique of right wing economic policies and rowing in behind Fine Gael. But today the illusions about the economy are fading.
The Celtic Tiger boom has ended and the Irish are being pulled back into the European maelstrom where a real battle is being fought out between those who want a ‘social Europe’ that puts people before profit or a neo-liberal Europe which wants more ‘fexibility’ ‘competetiveness’ and a strong military super-state.
Organising to win
The French No vote was won through a major social movement that tapped into the real concerns of millions.
Unity committees were established from below and were open to all on an individual basis, as opposed to structures based on organisational affiliation. They had a fluid organisational character which was referred to as a ‘human chain’. Virtually all groups who were opposed to neo-liberalism participated. In early march, 150 such unity committees were set up. By mid-April, there were 500. When the referendum came at the end of May, there were 1,000 across France. They became a core of a much wider word of mouth phenomenon that carried the argument against the Treaty.
Here is how one writer described how the No vote was won in his area:
In the 20th arrondissement (district ) of Paris, the call to form a unity committee was launched by a local Committee to Defend Public Services, itself set up on the back of the 2003 strikes against Raffarin’s pension reforms. All the currents of the anti-neoliberal left participated in the group, but around a quarter of its 200 members were new to politics.
A core of around 50 activists attended the committee’s weekly meetings for three to four months, discussing the issues thrown up by the campaign before organising their activities for the week ahead. The committee drew up six or seven different leaflets during the campaign, and distributed 40,000 copies of them in the local area.
Ireland is much smaller than France, so it is unlikely that fifty people will gather in unity committees once a week. The record of social struggle is also far lower. But the method is the key to victory.
We need a NO campaign that is open to all who want to fight a Treaty that brings neo-liberalism and war. Such a campaign should have nothing to do with fanatics who worry about abortion or homosexuality and want to defend holy Ireland. It should involve organised socialists and individuals with no affiliation. It should bring in trade union branches and anti-war groups. Above all else, it should be built from the bottom up, by the initiatives by the many hundreds activists who have emerged in Ireland in recent years.
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
15-Jan-2008 09:46
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Lisbon treaty will bring major changes
Written by Donal Mac Fhearraigh
Thursday, 10 January 2008
The UCD sociologist Kieran Allen has written a new guide to the current EU Lisbon Treaty. He shows it will bring major changes for the people of Ireland and Europe.
Kieran Allen said, “The political elite in Europe are implying that the Lisbon Treaty amounts to a series of house-keeping changes and does not bring any fundamental change. However, this is clearly wrong. The Treaty is substantially the same as the EU constitution which was rejected by the populations on France and Holland”.
“After that rejection, a small elite group of ‘wise men’ in the Amato group – named after a former Italian politician – worked behind closed doors to insert the substance of the EU Constitution into two older treaties. Quite deliberately, they have shrouded the whole procedure in a forbidding complexity to discourage people examining its provisions.
“Amato has since conceded that ‘they decided to make the document “unreadable” to enable EU politicians to claim it did not require a referendum’.
“Bertie Ahern has equally conceded that ‘90 percent of the EU constitution is still there’.
Among the major changes that the Lisbon Treaty will bring are:
A requirement on member states to increase military spending.
Article 27 –3 states that ‘Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’
A legal requirement, forcing member states to make troops available for EU battle groups (Article 27- 3 )
A solidarity clause that can be invoked if one member state is subject to a terrorist attack. While solidarity is indeed laudable, the experience of September 11th, however, demonstrates that cynical politician can use such clauses to involve others in wars against innocent civilians.
A fast-track system whereby the Commission can conduct negotiations with agencies such as the World Trade Organisation on the premises of promoting
‘the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation’
the ‘progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment’ (articles 188 ) .
In practice this implies a greater push towards privatisation and globalisation that will become binding on member states.
The more formal creation of an EU state which has its own distinct ‘legal personality’
Greater use of Qualified Majority Voting to give the EU more ‘competencies’ over member states.
Thanks to the legal actions of Raymond Crotty, the Irish people are the only people who can vote of these hugely important issues. We should exercise that vote on behalf of the whole people of Europe.
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
16-Jan-2008 17:13
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
forgot the name of the person on this forum that votes according to what others vote for (he said he votes against anything supported by socialists and greens ) .
he can vote against Lisbon then.
Giving reform a Green light
The Lisbon Treaty should be supported. It is time for the Greens to move beyond the politics of opposition, argues Green Party Senator Déirdre de Búrca
The Green Party was the political party of choice for me because of its internationalist identity. Its motto - "think global - act local" - reflected the fact that many of today`s critical political issues transcend national borders and call for new political responses.
Despite successsfully co-operating with its fellow European Green parties and other Green parties internationally over the past two decades on environmental and social justice campaigns, the Irish Green Party has been perceived as "anti-European" because we have campaigned against successive EU treaties since the Single European Act of 1987.
In recent years, newer members joining us have questioned and challenged this perceived anti-European identity. Many younger members have travelled and worked widely in Europe, and are committed Europeans.
The positive global leadership exercised by the European Union in areas of concern for the party such as climate change, human rights, development aid and international conflict prevention has caused a re-examination of our position on the EU among some sections of the party.
In fact, different strands of thinking in relation to the EU now co-exist within the Irish Green Party, as no doubt also within other political parties, and these were aired during the Green Party`s internal debate on the EU constitution in 2004. Although the French and Dutch No votes in 2005 meant that the party did not vote on that treaty, members of our parliamentary party and sections of our membership expressed their wish for change in the party`s traditional position of opposition to EU treaties.
So where are we now?
A two-year period of reflection followed the rejection of the EU constitution, culminating in a consensus among EU governments on the content of the Lisbon Treaty. The Green Party is in government and, following an information campaign within the party, we will hold a special convention on the treaty this Saturday. After a balanced debate on the arguments for supporting or opposing the treaty, members will be asked to vote on the issue.
As with previous special conventions on major internal party decisions, I expect an active and passionate debate.
I am proud to belong to a party that believes in open and democratic engagement with its members on major policy decisions.
This particular convention will present us with some challenges. A decision by members not to support the treaty will certainly raise questions about our relationship with our Government partners. Yet the party is consulting its members fully and giving them the opportunity to make a democratic decision.
As a member of the Green Party`s Policy Group on Europe, and as its European affairs spokeswoman, I have spent much time thinking about the Lisbon Treaty. Having been active in opposing previous EU treaties, I have not found it easy to arrive at a final position.
It seems to me that the fundamental debate about being "for" or "against" the European Union is over. The EU exists and is a significant and important player on the international stage. It has pioneered a form of political and economic co-operation between its member states that has brought 50 years of peace to much of Europe, unimaginable during the horrific first and second World Wars.
The EU has been responsible for much of the progressive employment and equality legislation implemented in Ireland. Many of the important advances in Irish environmental protection have been a result of EU environmental directives.
Ireland`s EU membership has contributed significantly to its recent economic prosperity. Much American foreign direct investment came to Ireland because it is seen as a gateway to the European Union.
I believe the question confronting both Green Party members and the Irish public now is what kind of EU they want, and whether they believe the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty will be good for Ireland and the EU, or not.
While it is difficult to provide a complete analysis of a complex and wide-ranging EU treaty, I believe the Lisbon Treaty is primarily about three important areas of change.
First, it is about reforming the main EU institutions to facilitate effective decision-making in an expanding Union.
Second, it strengthens the EU`s external identity and capacity for international action through the formal creation of a single legal personality for the EU, setting up an EU External Action Service, and establishing the offices of an EU President and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Third, the Lisbon Treaty incorporates the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in a Protocol. The charter sets out and gives a new legal basis to the fundamental rights and freedoms of EU citizens.
These rights include the right to life and integrity of the person, the prohibition of torture, a guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to education, and the right of equality among men and women.
There are many other important provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, but constraints of space allow me to mention only a few. One is the mechanism which allows member states to withdraw voluntarily from the Union on agreed terms, if it believes its membership of the EU is no longer in its national interest.
Another important commitment is that the EU will "tackle climate change", a policy area which is a top priority for Green Party members and supporters.
Two other provisions which would mobilise greater democratic involvement in EU affairs are the provision for a citizens` petition to request the introduction of new legislation, and the provision on subsidiarity which would strengthen the hand of national parliaments in curbing EU legislative excesses.
There are aspects of the Lisbon Treaty that remain areas of real concern for me. The continuing democratic deficit of the European Union is only partially addressed by the treaty.
A supranational polity such as the EU presents significant challenges in terms of facilitating traditional forms of democratic engagement by citizens.
However, democracy is a core value of the EU. Furthermore, if the Union does not address the legitimacy crisis which has grown as it has expanded, this may prove fatal when it needs the support of its citizens to implement critical decisions and policies.
The democratic deficit will not be cured overnight, but needs to be addressed in a sustained and serious way.
Some of the military and defence provisions of the Lisbon Treaty also cause me concern. Given the present democratic deficit, I do not believe that the development of a much greater military capacity on the part of the EU is in the interests of its citizens.
I also believe that the strength of the commitment in various provisions of the Lisbon Treaty to market liberalisation and undistorted competition has the potential to undermine the European social model and to threaten the continued existence of high-quality, universally accessible public services within the EU, including health and education.
The preferential position given to nuclear energy within the Euratom Treaty, attached by protocol to the Lisbon Treaty, is also a matter of concern.
On balance, and despite these reservations, I have decided to support the treaty. I believe the Green Party needs to move beyond the politics of opposition if it is to exercise the political influence that it should do, both in this country and in Europe over the coming years.
In an era of accelerating globalisation, of climate change, peak oil, humanitarian crises, international migration and human trafficking, I believe that a strong and effective European Union has an important role of global leadership.
I want to see the Green Party across Europe push for the continuing reform and improvement of the EU from within.
Déirdre de Búrca will be the introductory speaker at Saturday`s conference which will hear from three pro- and three anti-Lisbon Treaty speakers before a vote is taken whether the party should support the Yes campaign at the forthcoming referendum
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
16-Jan-2008 17:15
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Green TDs and senators to vote Yes for treaty
Stephen Collins, Political Editor
The campaign for a Yes vote on the Lisbon Treaty to reform the EU received a boost yesterday when the Green parliamentary party deciding unanimously to back the Yes campaign.
The Greens have campaign for a No vote in five EU referendums over the past 21 years, and the support of their TDs and senators for the Yes side in the forthcoming referendum is a new departure.
The decision of the six Green TDs and two senators to support the Lisbon Treaty came in advance of a special party members` convention on the issue which will be held in Dublin on Saturday.
Welcoming the decision of his colleagues, party leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley insisted that the Green Party would make its own decisions and ignore outside interference.
"I totally reject recent comments by sinister right-wing figures about how the Green Party should conduct its internal debate. I am confident that our members will enjoy a full and open debate about the EU treaty this weekend," said Mr Gormley.
The Green Party European affairs spokeswoman, Senator Deirdre de Burca , urged all members to participate in Saturday`s debate.
"Our members have a very important decision to make on Saturday. I hope that as many people as possible turn up to hear a very full and balanced debate on the treaty."
Delegates to the convention will debate motions to support the Yes and the No campaigns.
A two-thirds majority will be required to commit the party as a whole to either side. The party`s TDs and senators are hoping to mobilise the required majority to back the Yes campaign, but former MEP Patricia McKenna will be urging delegates to back the No campaign.
Lady Penelope
(643 Posts)
Posted:
16-Jan-2008 18:17
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
For all previous referenda we received the arguments for and against the treaty from a commission funded by the government. This is not happening this time round. Maybe there is a logical explanation for it but it would make one suspcious. Also I thought the Green party campaigned against the previous treaties.
Micko Mc
(1,915 Posts)
Posted:
16-Jan-2008 18:21
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Amazing, with the Greens in government, they are actually calling for a yes vote.
This leads me to one conclusion.
The only reason the likes of Sinn Fein, The Workers Party and originally the Greens called for a no vote was for sheer publicity.
They don`t give a flying f**k but are using it to put themselves on the map.
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
16-Jan-2008 23:37
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by Micko Mc:
Amazing, with the Greens in government, they are actually calling for a yes vote.
It`s amazing that you find it amazing. But, considering your conclusion, maybe it`s not so amazing. The left has their share of those that attack the status quo for the sake of it. You strike me as the type that supports the status quo for the sake of it. Or, am i wrong? lemme guess, FF/FG voter?
LP, they did vote against previous EU Referendums. Rightfully so, in my opinion. I voted against Nice for a variety of reasons.
What`s shocking about this position is why there is a change in perspective on EU Referendum. Read one of the reasons given by the Senator:
"In recent years, newer members joining us have questioned and challenged this perceived anti-European identity. Many younger members have travelled and worked widely in Europe, and are committed Europeans".
unreal. travelling and working in europe makes you support the lisbon treaty. makes you a "committed European". I`m writing that last label down. I wonder if "committed European" gets the same mileage as "patriotic American".
I`ll count that as the first time I heard a green use it in print.
balbec73-75
(1,191 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 00:02
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Mr Cut and Paste strikes again.
Micko Mc
(1,915 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 00:08
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
D-Day, while you are calling for a no vote with varied reasons etc, there`s a section of the No Camp who are scare mongering.
I`ll always remember the Nice Treaty for one reason. I afterwards asked my father which way did he vote. He said he voted no. I asked him why and he said he didn`t really have a clue what he was voting on, but he had heard so much stuff about Ireland losing its Neutrality etc etc which wans`t true that he voted no.
I just hope that as the two sides campaign develope that we won`t see another Scare Mongering campaign from a section of the No camp.
By the way, you can say what you like but these fringe parties are only calling for a No vote for publicity. The sad fact is that a large chunk of the population actually believe some of these loons.
One other thing D-Day. What do you expect to happen if Ireland votes no on the EU treaty. A two tier Europe where Ireland potentially gets left behind. The big 5 aint going to hang around due to some small Island saying no.
On another aside, aren`t you American ?
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 11:16
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by Micko Mc:
D-Day, while you are calling for a no vote with varied reasons etc, there`s a section of the No Camp who are scare mongering.
I`ll always remember the Nice Treaty for one reason. I afterwards asked my father which way did he vote. He said he voted no. I asked him why and he said he didn`t really have a clue what he was voting on, but he had heard so much stuff about Ireland losing its Neutrality etc etc which wans`t true that he voted no.
I just hope that as the two sides campaign develope that we won`t see another Scare Mongering campaign from a section of the No camp.
By the way, you can say what you like but these fringe parties are only calling for a No vote for publicity. The sad fact is that a large chunk of the population actually believe some of these loons.
One other thing D-Day. What do you expect to happen if Ireland votes no on the EU treaty. A two tier Europe where Ireland potentially gets left behind. The big 5 aint going to hang around due to some small Island saying no.
On another aside, aren`t you American ?
I am American, but I also hold an Irish passport. My parents were born and grew up here, so I have dual citizenship. This allows me to vote both here and in the US.
I agree completely with you that some people will scaremonger. I assume you`d also agree that some people will argue we should vote yes just because we`re being told to?
Like I said above, there are those that complain just to complain, and those that agree just to agree.
And, is your last paragraph not scaremongering? It seems to say to me "vote yes guys, or else they`re going to leave us out".
How is that in any way different from "Vote no guys, or else we`ll lose our freedoms?"
Neither provides any empirical evidence to support the claim.
To believe that "fringe parties" only oppose due to publicity is as weak as saying FF-FG agree only because they are in power. I have no doubt that some in the FF-FG party like aspects of the referendum, so I won`t just say that they are doing it because "they don`t want to upset Europe".
Check history. Fringe parties/movements have sparked massive social, political and economic change in the past, and it has been done in both positive and negative directions.
To answer your question, what would I expect to happen if the no vote goes through... At the very least, I think EU leaders would have to go back and revise (or at least pretend to revise ) what they want the people to support. Ireland could also show the new countries, and other small countries, that they do not have to be doormats for the bigger countries. In other words, you don`t have to vote yes for what they ask you to vote yes for.
They won`t, (and can`t ) , leave you behind.
And, I also think it shows a demand for a more democratic Europe with better workers rights.
If you want something we can both agree on. It`s anger at the Green Party. Add this to another sacrifice made. Latest positive they`ll claim was a ban on lightbulbs. If I heard that years ago, I would have considered it scaremongering by someone who didn`t like green politics. This group of Greens have made it a reality.
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 11:21
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by balbec73-75:
Mr Cut and Paste strikes again.
awwww. Isn`t that nice?
If after reading the first few words of this thread,
"will post up a few articles on this"
you felt you should read on to post something about "cutting and pasting", well, surely that should tell you something about you petty you are?
Keep fightin` the dumb fight, you dummy.
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 13:35
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Lisbon Treaty should not be given the Green light
The Green Party must say No to Lisbon because of the contempt the political elite is showing for the people, writes former MEP Patricia McKenna .
The Lisbon Treaty, like previous EU treaties, includes many proposals which are worrying for Green Party members.
The most obvious ones are the further militarisation of the EU, the power grab by the bigger member states, the further centralisation of power without true democratic accountability or control by elected representatives either in the European Parliament or national parliaments, the threat to "Social Europe", the lack of a requirement for UN mandates for EU military actions and the creation of a de facto state.
But on this occasion perhaps the most glaring concern of all is not just the treaty alone but the contempt shown by the political elite of Europe towards the citizens of the member states, and the refusal to give them a say on the future direction of the EU.
The Green Party has always been a voice for the oppressed and voiceless peoples of the world, and in this case the oppressed and voiceless are the citizens of all the member states whom opinion polls clearly show want the right to vote on this treaty.
Citizens in every member state want a referendum on this but are being denied the right to vote because their political leaders do not believe they will get the answer they want.
To quote French president Nicolas Sarkozy: "France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No.
"It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments...A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
So basically what we have is fundamental change without the consent of the citizens.
We now have a duty to stand firm on green principles and be a voice for all those denied a vote, including the French and Dutch whose democratic vote has been ignored.
Not only are political leaders openly admitting that they cannot trust their citizens to vote the way they are told but they are also openly admitting that they have taken the rejected EU constitution and renamed and repackaged it in an unreadable format.
To quote the father of the constitution, Giscard D`Estaing: "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly... All the earlier proposals will be in a new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way...What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained."
In yesterday`s Irish Times , Deirdre De Burca claimed: "A decision by members not to support the treaty will certainly raise questions about our relationship with our Government partners."
However, there is no commitment in the programme for government to support this treaty.
In fact it is not even mentioned despite the fact that everyone negotiating the programme for government knew that this referendum was pending. Therefore, we Greens are under no obligation to support the Fianna Fáil/PD line on this issue, and are free to decide our own position without it affecting our participation in government.
Instead, we should follow our own conscience and carefully consider the contents of this treaty.
It is also not unprecedented for members of cabinet to take an opposing view to the government in referenda. In the divorce referendum in 1986 the then minister for education Paddy Cooney publicly called for a No vote, and in 1992 PD ministers spoke against the proposed amendment on the "substantive issue" on abortion.
Deirdre also stated "that the fundamental debate about being `for or against` the EU is over".
It`s a pity that she is using this old Government line as it gives the impression that up to now she was in fact against the EU.
As a member of the European Parliament my understanding was that the Greens were always in favour of Europe, but that we wanted meaningful reform that benefited democracy and the citizens.
The Green Party has never had a debate about for or against the EU because we have always been in favour of the EU, but a more democratic and demilitarised EU.
In the context of peace, disarmament and global justice, this treaty must be unacceptable to Greens!
It obliges Ireland to build up its military capacities while consolidating the European Defence Agency, whose purpose is to promote the arms industries.
It does not ban weapons of mass destruction, nor does it demand a UN mandate for military operations. It includes a mutual defence clause, something that Greens and peace activists have always opposed.
This increased EU military role is bound to put increased military costs upon Ireland and the Irish taxpayer. Is this where we want our money going? If the Irish Government was sincere about protecting Ireland`s traditional policy of neutrality it would have followed the Danish example and sought an opt-out from these provisions.
While the EU Commission maintains its monopoly on proposing new laws, Ireland will lose its permanent EU commissioner.
Coupled with this are the new rules on voting in the council where voting strength will be based on population size and larger countries get more power.
Even Deirdre admits that numerous issues that concern us are still there, and that this treaty will advance them even further. But there is no opportunity to reverse them should we say Yes to this treaty.
However, a No in the referendum gives Ireland the best chance to demand changes.
The Green Party must take the lead in rejecting this treaty.
Doing so would ensure the possibility of getting a better deal and a better EU - one that is truly democratic where our political leaders are held to account.
The citizens of Europe deserve no less.
irishgolfonline
(Power User)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 15:34
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
"GO BACK TO RUSSIA"
Barnie Gumble in Homer`s back yard at a BBQ when Lisa Simpson declared herself a vegetarian
...
Ozzy
(1,867 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 15:47
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Was en route to Meelick last Sunday and I heard a guy on the radio make a v strong case against it, dealt v well with all the points put to him.
Wonder if anyone knows his name, had an English accent (something he apologised for ) is a self made millionaire and a former FF supporter.
Donnycarney2
(552 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 16:20
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by Ozzy:
Was en route to Meelick last Sunday and I heard a guy on the radio make a v strong case against it, dealt v well with all the points put to him.
Wonder if anyone knows his name, had an English accent (something he apologised for ) is a self made millionaire and a former FF supporter.
That`d be Declan Ganley
He`s throwing a serious amount of his own dosh into a No campaign. To this end he has set up a lobby group called "Libertas"
Their webpage is: http://www.libertas.org/
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 16:25
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Madam, - Harry McGee of your political staff says that Mr Declan Ganley, chairman of the right-wing group, Libertas, "has found himself as the de factofigurehead of the campaign against the Treaty of Lisbon". (Weekend Review, January 12th ) . Mr Ganley is no such thing.
The Irish Timesseems anxious to tar those who will campaign against this latest EU Treaty with a right-wing brush. On two recent occasions, on a flimsy pretext, your correspondents have suggested the possibility that the politically repulsive Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, might come here to "assist the No campaign". In fact his presence would be a major hindrance.
One of Mr Ganley`s problems with the Lisbon Treaty is that it does not give enough latitude to business corporations to engage in cut-throat competition in the ruthless pursuit of private profit. As if it weren`t enough that they have initiated the "race to the bottom" - the use of vulnerable migrant and other low-paid workers to undercut established wage levels and conditions - together with the push for privatisation of public services and attacks on workers` pension rights.
It is rather rich for Mr Ganley to pose as a defender of democracy in Europe. He enriched himself from speculation in public assets privatised by the corrupt bureaucracies which previously controlled the Soviet Union and satellite states as personal fiefdoms.
He was involved in the notorious "privatisation vouchers" scheme in Albania which later caused an economic and social collapse. The level of Mr Ganley`s concern for the proper planning and development of resources in the interests of the ordinary people of Albania can be deducted from the fact that he appointed the late Mr Liam Lawlor as an advisor to his privatisation projects.
Mr Ganley`s business dealings in Eastern Europe mirror those of the infamous Russian oligarchs who became obscenely rich in a short time by seizing private control of social assets that properly belonged to the Russian people, very many of whom were left in abject poverty by the privatisation process.
Privatisation and militarisation are further advanced within the EU by the proposals in the Lisbon Treaty. The Socialist Party will be advocating that working people in Ireland reject it. We will be campaigning both independently and in cooperation with other genuine opponents of neo-liberalism and capitalist globalisation, and certainly not as part of groupings which stand for an even more right-wing agenda than that already enshrined in the European Unoion.
- Yours, etc,
JOE HIGGINS, (Socialist Party ) Briarwood Close, Dublin 15
artfoley
(3,937 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 18:01
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
there is one single compelling reason to vote no to this
it totally and utterly overrides bunreachr na h`eireann as it will pass the powers of the irish people over to brussels and give them the rights to make laws for us willy nilly without amending the constitution
it`s a constitution by another name and it`s a fcuking the referendum commission isn`t providing material on this
Micko Mc
(1,915 Posts)
Posted:
17-Jan-2008 18:55
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
One of Ganleys main points rests with something that the Spanish PM is rumoured to have said. Strong point that.
Art, the EU can`t make laws willy nilly for. They can only make laws in areas where they are allowed to make law already which supercedes Irish law. To make new laws Willy Nilly as you say, it would take yet another Amending Treaty to give the EU powers in those areas which they want to write laws in Willy Nilly.
And of course, to put through yet another Amending Treaty it would take another Referendum.
In fact Art, the only areas where the EU can make law without Ireland blocking it is in the following.
1. Customs union
2. The establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market.
3. Monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro.
4. The conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy
5. Common commercial policy
As it stands, the EU can make laws without us doing anything. Under the new Treaty they can also make laws in these areas which would go against our Constitution.
Small question. If this Treaty is so bad, why aren`t Fine Gael and Labour making massive political points by absolutely sledging it ?
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
18-Jan-2008 11:29
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by Micko Mc:
One of Ganleys main points rests with something that the Spanish PM is rumoured to have said. Strong point that.
Art, the EU can`t make laws willy nilly for. They can only make laws in areas where they are allowed to make law already which supercedes Irish law. To make new laws Willy Nilly as you say, it would take yet another Amending Treaty to give the EU powers in those areas which they want to write laws in Willy Nilly.
And of course, to put through yet another Amending Treaty it would take another Referendum.
In fact Art, the only areas where the EU can make law without Ireland blocking it is in the following.
1. Customs union
2. The establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market.
3. Monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro.
4. The conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy
5. Common commercial policy
As it stands, the EU can make laws without us doing anything. Under the new Treaty they can also make laws in these areas which would go against our Constitution.
Small question. If this Treaty is so bad, why aren`t Fine Gael and Labour making massive political points by absolutely sledging it ?
I disagree, that`s not a small question, but an extremely important one. Think of it in another context. If recent policies have been so bad, where people are losing their jobs and their homes, where the inequality between rich and poor are growing, ....
why are Clinton and Obama not suggesting any real alternatives?
The answer to that question is very similar to the answer to the question that you`ve posed here.
Portumna Bridge
(1,320 Posts)
Posted:
18-Jan-2008 11:38
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
I`d question Ganly`s real motives for opposing the Lisbon Treaty. This vulture capitalist has made a huge amount of money exploiting the economies of the old Soviet Block states, if the EU harmonizes things in the way that Lisbon is intended, then it will be in direct opposition to his race to the bottom philosophy.
Having said that, I am in the No camp, as I am suspicious of the rights and powers that are conferred on us by B na hE being eroded.......
Micko Mc
(1,915 Posts)
Posted:
18-Jan-2008 17:57
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by D-Day:
I disagree, that`s not a small question, but an extremely important one. Think of it in another context. If recent policies have been so bad, where people are losing their jobs and their homes, where the inequality between rich and poor are growing, ....
why are Clinton and Obama not suggesting any real alternatives?
The answer to that question is very similar to the answer to the question that you`ve posed here.
I`ve seen Bertie giving a straighter answer than that.
I think you don`t know the answer.
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
19-Jan-2008 14:10
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by Micko Mc:
I`ve seen Bertie giving a straighter answer than that.
I think you don`t know the answer.
If it isn`t clear to you, I`m happy to spell it out for you.
The move of both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to adopt neoliberal policies has had massive impacts on current politics.
Staying with the US example, the Democrats moved even further right after the Reagan era. Clinton`s main advisors described him as a moderate republican, but in many ways, he wasn`t merely Republican. His health care, welfare, and free trade reforms will damage the United States for years to come. If you`re interested in both Bush`s and Clinton`s economic policies, I`d suggest "Contours of Descent" by Robert Pollin.
After losing to Bush, the leading Democrats have all toed the line, and kept with the Clinton philosophy.
This leads back to your question, why don`t they listen to the demands of US citizens? Why don`t they critique health care, or the Iraq war, after polls show US citizens want change?
The answer is simple. Those that control the Democratic party are not the US citizens that vote for them. You instead must look at who owns the Democratic Party, where their finance base is, and the answer becomes obvious to anyone. This further highlights the miniscule difference between Republicans and Democrats. They cater to nearly identical parts and structures of society. They aren`t going to anger those that fund them, so clinton, obama, and edwards are offering very similar perspectives on how a democratic candidate will operate. when someone like kucinich is on stage, and points out how horrible the situation is, they do the obvious thing. Try to ban him from debates.
Why doesn`t FG critique the european referendum? Because FG is no different than FF in any political perspective. It`s also rare that a treaty would be bad for everyone. So, if this treaty moves to privatize more of public services, FF and FG both want that, as that`s what they`ve done before. They both backed Nice, which contained article 133 that pushed for more privatisation. Of course they`re both going to back this one. They score political points (with the groups that back them ) by supporting the referendum. As for the local voters that support them, it`s no different than Democratic voters that will vote for Clinton or Obama.
I find it incredible that so many people in the country would want to transfer so much control to Europe. As a citizen of Ireland, I don`t want that. For that reason, and several others, I will vote against the referendum. I voted against Nice for reasons relating to ARticle 133, and also largely becuase of the transfer upwards of power.
You don`t mind that Europe and other countries will have more power over you as an Irish citizen. In fact, if you read your above post, you are so scared and frightened that Ireland will be left out of Europe by the larger countries, it seems like there`s a lot you`re willing to surrender.
Based on my reading of the treaty and of your rationale, that`s being "submissive", which can be defined as:
"inclined or ready to submit. unresistingly or humbly obedient"
You don`t have to like those that vote with you. I have no doubt there are going to be "traditionally right wing" people that vote against the treaty. That`s fine. My vote isn`t one of approval of their politics, instead my political choice is based entirely on what is proposed by the European treaty. Which, again, is why I`m voting no.
ClareGalway
(360 Posts)
Posted:
19-Jan-2008 16:47
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
D Day you should write a book yourself.Lord knows you seem to have the time.
I would suggest a working title along the lines of "An American Communist in Ireland and how he knows everything".
D-Day
(1,197 Posts)
Posted:
19-Jan-2008 16:59
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
Originally posted by ClareGalway:
D Day you should write a book yourself.Lord knows you seem to have the time.
I would suggest a working title along the lines of "An American Communist in Ireland and how he knows everything".
side splitting.
any more? maybe another comical book title suggestion?
as for knowing everything, a quick look at the thread of NFL picks would unfortunately suggest otherwise.
ClareGalway
(360 Posts)
Posted:
19-Jan-2008 17:46
Quote
Edit
Delete
Report Post
Post Reply
OK seeing as you enjoyed it so much
"Socialism let me spell it out for you Dummy"
"I`m amazed youre amazed you moron"
"I`ll put it simple for the simpletons"
are three other suggestions I have all based on how you reply to those who try to dicuss issues with you but have the misfortune not to have the same viewpoint.
As for the NFL picks no one beats the house in the long run every idiot knows that.Oops.
First
1
2
Last
Select a page:
1
2
Page
1
of
2
"Speak Out!" Home
|
Topic Listing
|
Post New Topic
|
Post Reply
‘We talk just like lions, but we sacrifice like lambs…’.
Whatever Happened to….
Anyone you know in your club?
Bin Tags Don't Make a County
‘Some a’ Dem’ Lads are only Dow-en for the Showers….’
Heavenly Hurling: How the Gods pass their time...
GAA Time and Real Time
Saint Patrick and the camogie princesses
Keats and Chapman at the Munster Final
Mass, the Mater, ‘The Dergvale’ and Mullingar…
More "Content Zone" Topics >>
More "Speak Out!" Topics >>