Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

the-island-man

Thanks for clearing that up but I am still going to vote NO!:D No matter what reason is given to me i still think its wrong that this treaty be passed with the consent of only 4 million people! whether it be because of member countries policies, constitution etc.

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up but I am still going to vote NO!:D No matter what reason is given to me i still think its wrong that this treaty be passed with the consent of only 4 million people! whether it be because of member countries policies, constitution etc.

Well, that's a bit of logic that applies equally well either way. Fortunately, we're not the only people to make the decision. We're just the only ones to make it by referendum - as usual.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the-island-man

Well didn't France and Holland make a decision on 95% of this treaty/constitution already? What could of been so bad in that other 5% that by leaving it out would make us vote yes?:p

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

Well didn't France and Holland make a decision on 95% of this treaty/constitution already? What could of been so bad in that other 5% that by leaving it out would make us vote yes?:p

Well, it wasn't us that voted No. As to the French, the 5% they're leaving out is Chirac.

You know, if we're going to vote on behalf of the other 26 countries, it so happens we're quite conveniently set up...

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

With the Nice treaty the second offering included a new clause about neutrality. Im just wondering were the government to give us a second vote on Lisbon (assuming the first referendum came out NO), what could they do to make it different?

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

With the Nice treaty the second offering included a new clause about neutrality. Im just wondering were the government to give us a second vote on Lisbon (assuming the first referendum came out NO), what could they do to make it different?

I wondered the same thing. The amendment looks pretty comprehensive, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Wouldnt be good for Brian Cowen at this moment.

Even though I will vote NO, I do realize that if a NO vote is carried it will be because of a lack of information and/or non Treaty issues (such as only 1% of EU voting on it). My NO vote is out of a genuine thought through decision (having gone to the FOM roadshow). The same could not be said for other people.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Wouldnt be good for Brian Cowen at this moment.

Even though I will vote NO, I do realize that if a NO vote is carried it will be because of a lack of information and/or non Treaty issues (such as only 1% of EU voting on it). My NO vote is out of a genuine thought through decision (having gone to the FOM roadshow). The same could not be said for other people.

That goes for both sides, of course. It's a strong argument for not taking this kind of decision by referendum.

However, there are always good arguments against democracy, and they all lead to the same bad places - dictatorship, oligarchy, and the like. Churchill was quite right - democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Irish and Proud wrote: »

The more centralised Europe becomes, the more the political institutions become divorced from the people.

How exactly will the Lisbon Treaty cause this to occur?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Firstly I was also told that if people in the US were heard criticising certain presidents within their time, they would find themselves out of a job - the workers there have far fewer rights than we have in Ireland...

Methinks you've been reading too many John Grisham novels.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

In the USA, the government is so centralised that in practical terms, it's above the people - at election time, it simply comes down to money - basically, how much money can a party spend on political spin doctors? - How much of the industry can the parties persuade to fund their campaigns and therefore, their spin doctors? - How much business friendly policies does each party have to adapt in order to get their campaign funding? - Where does the ordinary punter come into all of this?

What has any of that got to do with Lisbon?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...look at how powerless our American counterparts seem to be - do you think they're happy to be exploited by companies, forced to spend hours in traffic each day, having to put up with massive health insurance bills and education fees.

Over 62 million of them voted Bush back in 2004, so I guess they're not THAT unhappy.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If this Lisbon treaty is so good for the ordinary European citizen, why doesn't he/she have a say - only the Irish people (4.25m out of around 450m) have a say because otherwise, a ratification here would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal!

So all the other member states should be forced to ratify the treaty as we see fit? That doesn't sound very democratic, does it?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Please Vote No!

You've yet to offer a good reason to.

Irish and Proud

djpbarry wrote: »

How exactly will the Lisbon Treaty cause this to occur?

Did you not hear the ever increasing arrogance of some politicians right from the time of the Maastrict Treaty - in more extreme cases, when Denmark voted no, it was "Tough luck Denmark" and "We'll go on without them". When Ireland voted no to Nice, many EU politicians described us as selfish - are these not good examples of political bullying and blatant disregard for democratic principles? Again, when we hear "What will Europe think of us if we vote no?" - is this not convincing evidence of politicians becoming out of touch with the people? Where does democracy come into it???

djpbarry wrote: »

Me thinks you've been reading too many John Grisham novels.

Actually, I don't read very much at all. However, given the level of corruption and collusion among political and industrial interests in the USA (that we frequently hear about), why would you be surprised at people being fired because of their political viewpoints? Is it not obvious that the ruling political and industrial interests enjoy quite a cosy relationship? Look at Iraq and the contracts!

djpbarry wrote: »

What has any of that got to do with Lisbon?

If the politicians of Europe are telling us how to vote and scaremongering about economic damage in the event of a no vote, what does that say about them? They certainly don't come across to me as democratic individuals. Like in the USA, it seems that the EU politicians are trying to control their people - remember, the leaders of other member countries do not see fit to ask their people about Lisbon - seemingly they decided what was good for them as they feared the results of a public vote! A more centralised Europe would favour big business in which the execs would certainly get familiar with political figures. As such vested interests infiltrate the affairs of Europe, things could end up going the way of the political system in America.

djpbarry wrote: »

Over 62 million of them voted Bush back in 2004, so I guess they're not THAT unhappy.

Actually, in all aspects other than global security, public opinion in the USA very much favoured the Democrats. However, the control mechanisms were in place and the people were so scared of Bin Laden and Co that they opted for the Bush administration, who seemed to offer a harder stance in the "War on Terror". On that note, the WTC attacks may have been easily preventable - the Bush administration seemed to know that passenger planes were to be hi-jacked and flown into targets within the US. Given the earlier 1993 WTC attack, it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to work out one of the said targets. Funny enough, 9/11 did help the Bush administration and co along nicely!

djpbarry wrote: »

So all the other member states should be forced to ratify the treaty as we see fit? That doesn't sound very democratic, does it?

No, not as we see fit, but as the people of Europe see fit!!! All member states should be forced to act democratically and put the Lisbon Treaty to their people - why should 4m people decide above the heads of 450m that Lisbon is to be ratified - how arrogant could we be???

djpbarry wrote: »

You've yet to offer a good reason to.

...as if the above isn't good enough a reason!!!

Please Vote No!

johnnyq

turgon wrote: »

With the Nice treaty the second offering included a new clause about neutrality. Im just wondering were the government to give us a second vote on Lisbon (assuming the first referendum came out NO), what could they do to make it different?

Well the big thing is for Ireland to get the same if not better military and justice opt outs that Denmark did.

Second, drop the requirement for irish money to be spent on increasing military capabilities

Third get a president of europe we actually elect.

There's plenty more really

oscarBravo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If the politicians of Europe are telling us how to vote...

That's a canard that comes up quite a lot: the idea that someone can "tell" you how to vote. Some politicians can tell you to vote yes, others will tell you to vote no. People on this forum, on the street, in your family, will all tell you how to vote. The beauty of a secret ballot is that you don't have to listen to any of them.

A more centralised Europe would favour big business in which the execs would certainly get familiar with political figures.

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

All member states should be forced to act democratically and put the Lisbon Treaty to their people.

Why would forcing Germany to do something expressly forbidden by its constitution be any better than forcing Ireland to do so? In both cases, it can't, which is as it should be.

...why should 4m people decide above the heads of 450m that Lisbon is to be ratified - how arrogant could we be???

What makes that any more arrogant than deciding on behalf of 450m that it shouldn't be ratified?

We should decide on behalf of ourselves. If the citizens of the other EU member states are sufficiently unhappy with their governments' actions, they'll find a way of expressing that displeasure. Y'know, democracy.

Please Vote No!

Oh look, someone else telling people how to vote.

johnnyq wrote: »

Third get a president of europe we actually elect.

How, and why?

auerillo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Actually, I don't read very much at all. However, given the level of corruption and collusion among political and industrial interests in the USA (that we frequently hear about), why would you be surprised at people being fired because of their political viewpoints? Is it not obvious that the ruling political and industrial interests enjoy quite a cosy relationship? Look at Iraq and the contracts!

While we must accept that any political system will try to protect itself from criticism, it is useful to note how the EU treats its officials who try to uncover fraud and corruption within the EU. The case of Bernard Connolly springs to mind, and it doesn't make for comfortable reading. I find it hard to be enthuaistic about giving more power to the EU, especially when one realises that democracy, that most precious flower, seems to be thought of as an inconvenience to the onward march of "progress". We are lucky, in recent times, to have lived in times of economic success, and the necessity for democracy seems less clear. I hope we don't live rue the day we hand over more and more power to the institutions of the EU at the expense of nationally accountable politicians.

Sunn

djpbarry wrote: »

So all the other member states should be forced to ratify the treaty as we see fit? That doesn't sound very democratic, does it?

imo every country should have held a referendum on lisbon. Exactly how democratic is it for someone to make a decision on your behalf?

dresden8

A more democratic, open and accountable Europe?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1046561_fury_over_secret_expenses

Irish and Proud

auerillo wrote: »

While we must accept that any political system will try to protect itself from criticism, it is useful to note how the EU treats its officials who try to uncover fraud and corruption within the EU. The case of Bernard Connolly springs to mind, and it doesn't make for comfortable reading.

Yes, indeed it very much brings to mind the type of corruption in the US!

auerillo wrote: »

I find it hard to be enthuaistic about giving more power to the EU, especially when one realises that democracy, that most precious flower, seems to be thought of as an inconvenience to the onward march of "progress".

You hit the nail on the head mate!

auerillo wrote: »

We are lucky, in recent times, to have lived in times of economic success, and the necessity for democracy seems less clear. I hope we don't live rue the day we hand over more and more power to the institutions of the EU at the expense of nationally accountable politicians.

Well hopefully the current economic downturn will help to bring things into perspective!

Regards!

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes that any more arrogant than deciding on behalf of 450m that it shouldn't be ratified?

I'll tell you what makes it less arrogant - from the result of referendums held on the said "now abandoned EU Constitution", we can get a good idea that ordinary people are less than impressed with the EU. By voting no, we are much more likely to be fulfilling the will of the ordinary EU citizens. In any case, the people have not been given a voice, and given the level of suspicion concerning the EU institutions, I think we have a responsibility to protect democracy and vote no - IMO, it is not solely our decision to allow EU politicians to get what they want, especially since it's quite likely to be contrary to the public will within many EU countries.

oscarBravo wrote: »

We should decide on behalf of ourselves. If the citizens of the other EU member states are sufficiently unhappy with their governments' actions, they'll find a way of expressing that displeasure. Y'know, democracy.

Well I hope that come June, the various peoples all over the EU will mount demonstrations urging Ireland to vote no - for any EU citizen (other than Irish) reading this, if you feel unhappy that you've been effectively disenfranchised, please make your feelings known - EU politicians have no right to make changes effecting your country without your consent! Of course, if you're happy with the EU, you have every right to be so - but those of us who are not happy are being unfairly dismissed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh look, someone else telling people how to vote.

I said "Please Vote No!"!!! - That is not telling people how to vote, it is asking them - there is a difference! People are perfectly entitled to vote what ever way they want, but I'm putting up my side of the argument, which is naturally part of the democratic process

So again, I will ask people: Please Vote No!

oscarBravo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well I hope that come June, the various peoples all over the EU will mount demonstrations urging Ireland to vote no...

If we don't see such demonstrations, will you take that as a sign that you are wrong about the deep-rooted unhappiness with the EU that, thus far, seems only to be a gut feeling on your part?

I said "Please Vote No!"!!! - That is not telling people how to vote, it is asking them - there is a difference! People are perfectly entitled to vote what ever way they want, but I'm putting up my side of the argument, which is naturally part of the democratic process

So again, I will ask people: Please Vote No!

Ah, OK - you're asking people to vote a particular way, whereas others are telling them how to vote.

Care to give me an example of the latter? I can't recall seeing any.

Irish and Proud

dresden8 wrote: »

A more democratic, open and accountable Europe?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1046561_fury_over_secret_expenses

I haven't read into much of the details, but it certainly doesn't sound too good! - From the article, it appears that politicians from most UK parties (including Labour) are seriously concerned about the issue - now that doesn't exactly do much to promote a yes vote for Lisbon, does it??? Then there's the bit about the accounts not being maintained for the last 12 years! :eek:

What could we be letting ourselves in for???

Oh my God!!!

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

If we don't see such demonstrations, will you take that as a sign that you are wrong about the deep-rooted unhappiness with the EU that, thus far, seems only to be a gut feeling on your part?

There are cultural differences, so people might not express their feelings in the way that you or me might expect - in any case, we'll see!

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, OK - you're asking people to vote a particular way, whereas others are telling them how to vote.

Care to give me an example of the latter? I can't recall seeing any.

I heard a politician saying on radio: "What will Europe think if we vote no?"...

...now, I thought that we as the electorate were adults capable of making a decision. What does the above politician mean by trying (and I think trying is the word!) to treat us like children who she wants behaving like 'good little girls and boys'?

Well, for the record, I'm such a bold brat!!! - So, I'll probably get a spanking the next time I say...

"Please Vote No!" :p:p

...I think she heard me, I better hide!!! :D:D

IRLConor

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'll tell you what makes it less arrogant - from the result of referendums held on the said "now abandoned EU Constitution", we can get a good idea that ordinary people are less than impressed with the EU. By voting no, we are much more likely to be fulfilling the will of the ordinary EU citizens. In any case, the people have not been given a voice, and given the level of suspicion concerning the EU institutions, I think we have a responsibility to protect democracy and vote no - IMO, it is not solely our decision to allow EU politicians to get what they want, especially since it's quite likely to be contrary to the public will within many EU countries.

Just checking, you are aware of the distinction between the EU and the governments of the member states, right?

The notion that the EU is a big third party faceless bogeyman with a mind of its own is a terribly mistaken viewpoint. It's nothing but a collection of countries and the policies of the EU are simply the commonly agreed positions of all of the national governments. Given that all the governments in the EU are democratically elected it's disingenuous at best to suggest that the EU does not represent the democratic will of the people of the member states.

Not just that, but the notion that the Constitution had been rejected by the people of the EU is not the whole truth. While France and the Netherlands voted no, Luxembourg and Spain both voted yes. In fact, if you count up all of the people that voted on the constitution (~49 million people) the vote was 54% Yes, 46% No. Hardly a solid basis suggesting that "ordinary people are less than impressed with the EU".

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well I hope that come June, the various peoples all over the EU will mount demonstrations urging Ireland to vote no - for any EU citizen (other than Irish) reading this, if you feel unhappy that you've been effectively disenfranchised, please make your feelings known - EU politicians have no right to make changes effecting your country without your consent! Of course, if you're happy with the EU, you have every right to be so - but those of us who are not happy are being unfairly dismissed.

If you're a citizen of a country other than Ireland and you feel you should have been offered a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon protest to your own government because it is they who are denying you the referendum. Don't bother protesting to the EU because they have nothing to do with that decision.

ChocolateSauce

I'll be voting yes. I find the criticisims of the "undemocratic" aspects of the means of ratification to be silly, as the treaty will increase transparency and democracy.

I got a nice little booklet through the door about the treaty, and when I finished I was gobsmacked. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about! I read the treaty before, but assumed I missed something important because people were practically crying rape about it, but I realised then that it was merely people on the far left, far right and far republican spectrum who are fundamentally opposed the EU.

I'm disappointed that the treaty is so tame. I would have voted for the constitution.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the EU feels that it is necessary to move forward, and Ireland will not let it, then our position in the Union is at risk (according to, amongst others, Peter Sutherland). That may sit uncomfortably with the notion that we're in the Union because we deserve it for being just so generally wonderful, but that's life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Absolute rubbish...there is NO legal mechanism for removing member states over a constitutional referendum that fails to go the way bureaucrats would like.

oscarBravo

Amberman wrote: »

Absolute rubbish...there is NO legal mechanism for removing member states over a constitutional referendum that fails to go the way bureaucrats would like.

Your reply is a total non sequitur to the post it quotes. Scofflaw didn't mention being removed from the Union.

Irish and Proud

IRLConor wrote: »

Just checking, you are aware of the distinction between the EU and the governments of the member states, right?

The notion that the EU is a big third party faceless bogeyman with a mind of its own is a terribly mistaken viewpoint. It's nothing but a collection of countries and the policies of the EU are simply the commonly agreed positions of all of the national governments.

Well you could say that a school yard gang is made up of a group of people who share the same objectives, but as we all know...

...the EU politicians of smaller countries simply seem to follow those of the bigger countries for fear of being isolated - remember when Denmark voted no to Maastrict, instead of any rethinking among EU politicians, the German and French leaders wanted to go on without them. Our own TDs warned us that we would end up the same way as Denmark if we voted no. Does that not sound like school yard bullying tactics?

IRLConor wrote: »

Not just that, but the notion that the Constitution had been rejected by the people of the EU is not the whole truth. While France and the Netherlands voted no, Luxembourg and Spain both voted yes. In fact, if you count up all of the people that voted on the constitution (~49 million people) the vote was 54% Yes, 46% No. Hardly a solid basis suggesting that "ordinary people are less than impressed with the EU".

Well 46% is still enough to justify putting what is vertually a new EU constitution to all citizens of the EU - did you read any info on it (citizens information etc.) - parts of the Lisbon Treaty will give the EU exclusive rights in certain areas like foreign policy and security - to me, it's sowing the first seeds for American style federalism. Other aspects of Lisbon sound good, but at what cost?

IRLConor wrote: »

If you're a citizen of a country other than Ireland and you feel you should have been offered a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon protest to your own government because it is they who are denying you the referendum. Don't bother protesting to the EU because they have nothing to do with that decision.

Well direct your protest at the Irish people, urging them to vote no - in this most undemocratic treaty, we are the only people who have a say - we are the only people who can do something to stop this new federal Europe. Let's negotiate a new Europe for the people - not a Europe that is the reserve of politicians and vested interests!

Regards!

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Absolute rubbish...there is NO legal mechanism for removing member states over a constitutional referendum that fails to go the way bureaucrats would like.

Actually, that's a pretty standard No response to any idea that voting No might have any drawbacks. I'm not aware that anyone on the Yes side claims it will happen.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...the EU politicians of smaller countries simply seem to follow those of the bigger countries for fear of being isolated - remember when Denmark voted no to Maastrict, instead of any rethinking among EU politicians, the German and French leaders wanted to go on without them. Our own TDs warned us that we would end up the same way as Denmark if we voted no. Does that not sound like school yard bullying tactics?

No not really. The other countries are just looking after their interests, from their point of view they're not trying to punish Denmark but to help themselves. If they join together and reform themselves for their own benefit Denmark has no right or moral position to stop them. It's only for Denmark to decide what Denmark does, it can't make decisions for anyone else. Same goes with Ireland, we can stop our government from partaking in any European initiative but we can't stop other countries from doing so. The boat is leaving at some stage, we can be on it or we can stay off it is our choice. Just as it is for other countries to decide what they want to do.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well 46% is still enough to justify putting what is vertually a new EU constitution to all citizens of the EU - did you read any info on it (citizens information etc.) - parts of the Lisbon Treaty will give the EU exclusive rights in certain areas like foreign policy and security - to me, it's sowing the first seeds for American style federalism. Other aspects of Lisbon sound good, but at what cost?

Wrong. The EU only has exclusive rights over customs, competition law and monetary policy. All other issues are either joint rights or exclusive to individual states. It is that way now, it's been that way since 1999 and it will remain that way for the foreseeable future. The Lisbon treaty gives no new exclusive rights to the EU.

Referendum Commission wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty would specify who has the power to do what by listing the areas in which:

• the EU has exclusive competence – this means that the decisions must be made at EU level and not at national government level;
• the EU and national governments have joint competence;
• the national governments have exclusive competence but the EU may support and help to co-ordinate.

EU exclusive competence

The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU has exclusive competence in a number of areas including the customs union, the establishment of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market and monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the Euro.

Joint competence of EU and Member States

The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU and the Member States have joint competence in a number of areas including the internal market, agriculture, environment, consumer protection and energy.

Member States’ exclusive competence, but with the EU having competence to support Member State action

The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU would have competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States in various areas including human health, industry, culture, tourism and education.

IRLConor

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well you could say that a school yard gang is made up of a group of people who share the same objectives, but as we all know...

Are you trying to suggest that a schoolyard gang has a mind of its own independent of the members? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...the EU politicians of smaller countries simply seem to follow those of the bigger countries for fear of being isolated - remember when Denmark voted no to Maastrict, instead of any rethinking among EU politicians, the German and French leaders wanted to go on without them.

Of course the Germans and French wanted to go on without them. They don't give a flying **** in a high wind about the views of the population of a foreign country. No country does, they only act in their own self-interest. International politics is nothing but bullying and cajoling; the only way you get other countries to cooperate with you is by carrot [trade, power pooling, mutual defence] or stick [war, tariffs].

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Our own TDs warned us that we would end up the same way as Denmark if we voted no. Does that not sound like school yard bullying tactics?

Yes, but that's coming from our politicians, not the EU. I don't trust our politicians as far as I can throw them, I tend to ignore what they say about laws and treaties, read the documents myself and make up my own mind.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well 46% is still enough to justify putting what is vertually a new EU constitution to all citizens of the EU - did you read any info on it (citizens information etc.) - parts of the Lisbon Treaty will give the EU exclusive rights in certain areas like foreign policy and security - to me, it's sowing the first seeds for American style federalism. Other aspects of Lisbon sound good, but at what cost?

I agree, there should be a referendum on the treaty (where it is legal to do so). What I don't agree with is the idiotic notion that it's the EU's fault that there isn't. The governments of the member states are the only ones with the power to decide that, if you want to blame someone, blame them.

And I haven't just read information on the treaty, I've read the treaty itself. I can't claim to understand absolutely everything about it, the documents are too big to hold in my head all at once, but I do think I'm better informed than the average Joe.

I don't believe it's sowing the seeds for American style Federalism at all. The foreign policy and security decisions require unanimity among the member states; in the US the federal government has a complete monopoly on those areas and the states are not consulted. How is that the same?

The structure and principles of the EU are vastly different from that of the USA. We may end up in an EU quasi-superstate but it won't look anything like the USA. To try and compare two dissimilar collections of "states" (a state in the USA doesn't really qualify as a real state in my book) and claim they're the same is a gross over-simplification.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well direct your protest at the Irish people, urging them to vote no - in this most undemocratic treaty, we are the only people who have a say - we are the only people who can do something to stop this new federal Europe. Let's negotiate a new Europe for the people - not a Europe that is the reserve of politicians and vested interests!

Did you even read what I posted? FFS...

sink

Left out the most important bit.

Referendum Commission wrote:

Changes in competence

The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU joint competence with Member States in a number of new areas. These include energy and aspects of the environment and public health. It does not propose to give the EU any new exclusive competence.

Stimulant

The_Minister wrote: »

I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.
I would be default yes (I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists), but I'm going to give it a good read before I vote.
I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes. Libertas is probably the most trustworthy "No" campaign by a long shot, but I've heard criticisms of some of the things its saying too.



I saw this post on the front page and it shocked me to describe Libertas as a trustworthy source.
I suggest people look at the founder (Declan Ganley) here and other articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/fionnan-sheahan/libertas-founder---refuses-to-reveal-list-of-donors-1315058.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

Ganley is currently chairman and CEO of Rivada Networks[1], a US defence contractor specializing in military telecom systems. In the past, he has been involved in business ventures selling Russian aluminium and in the Latvian forestry sector, where he was made a foreign affairs adviser after it gained independence in 1991.[2] Back in Ireland, Ganley had owned the high-profile jewellery website, Adornis.com, which collapsed after the downturn in the technology sector. A 2006 interview in CNBC’s European Business magazine suggested Ganley had a personal worth of €300 million.[2]


This reminds me of american politics and a big stupid media campaign. If you have money you can do what you want and sway opinion to your own means.

Just consider that when considering their opinion along with out ACTUAL politicans who WE have elected.