UCD Students And The Treaty of Lisbon

Gibbins123

pretty*monster wrote: »

June 15th? Where did you hear that?
I shall be in London on that date so won't be voting. If it's held on a different date I'll be voting no based on general Euro-skepticness.

Don't be such a sheep. If you don't understand what your voting for then don't vote at all.

RandolphEsq

Sean_K wrote: »

We're in Ireland. We gotta think about ourselves first and europe second. The EU must come second to Ireland in all of our decision making. There's no point in throwing away our freedoms for the sake of appeasing anyone else.

Freedoms need not be surrendered. We simply vote no, keep our freedoms, and things proceed as before. It's very shortsighted to go on about the greater good and the needs of many, and reeks of propaganda.

But the benefits for the greater good far outweigh the benefits of keeping the Status Quo.
The EU was set up to unite European countries. The ultimate goal is to get rid of every individual country and instead just have the EU as one big country. That would be wonderful if it could happen i.e. if the EU was to continue to evolve the way it is doing. This Treaty allows it to evolve a tiny bit more to reach this ultimate goal. However, people fear this Superstate because they fear the loss of democracy in it. The Treaty (whilst only making a barely noticeable change to the EU) manages to make a step forward nonetheless and actually extend the hands of democracy across the EU decision-making process in an attempt to make the EU seem more local and easier to understand for us, the ordinary average citizens of the EU. Do not be afraid of what you do not understand.

The_Minister

A superstate is NOT the eventual goal of Europe and never has been.

And, Sean K, I suggest you read some of the threads in the EU forum.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

BrightEyes wrote:

But the benefits for the greater good far outweigh the benefits of keeping the Status Quo.
The EU was set up to unite European countries. The ultimate goal is to get rid of every individual country and instead just have the EU as one big country. That would be wonderful if it could happen i.e. if the EU was to continue to evolve the way it is doing. This Treaty allows it to evolve a tiny bit more to reach this ultimate goal. However, people fear this Superstate because they fear the loss of democracy in it. The Treaty (whilst only making a barely noticeable change to the EU) manages to make a step forward nonetheless and actually extend the hands of democracy across the EU decision-making process in an attempt to make the EU seem more local and easier to understand for us, the ordinary average citizens of the EU. Do not be afraid of what you do not understand.

I understand pretty well...you're advocating the creation of a Union of Soviet European Republics. That's a pretty ridiculous argument for the Treaty.

You seem to have no pride in national identity and no sense of what's right for Ireland, and I think you're a bit caught up in a bit of political idealism. You certainly don't seem to be making a reasoned argument.

RandolphEsq

Sean_K wrote: »

I understand pretty well...you're advocating the creation of a Union of Soviet European Republics. That's a pretty ridiculous argument for the Treaty.

You seem to have no pride in national identity and no sense of what's right for Ireland, and I think you're a bit caught up in a bit of political idealism. You certainly don't seem to be making a reasoned argument.

Correct. I do not have any beliefs in patriotism/nationalism. But why should I take pride in being Irish when I can take pride in being a citizen of the world as a whole since we are all the same on this Earth?

Breezer

OK, BrightEyes is as entitled to his/her views as anyone else, but please realize that an EU Superstate is NOT what the EU or the Lisbon Treaty is about. I'm passionately pro-EU, pro-Lisbon, but I'd never support an EU superstate.

Lisbon is about modifying the existing structures of the EU to allow greater fluidity and efficiency of decision making. Modifying them so that they can carry out their existing tasks better, not replacing them with central EU government.

Furthermore, Lisbon reaffirms national identity. It gives a greater role to national parliaments in the decision making process. It gives more power to the European Parliament, the members of which are directly elected in each member state. These powers include the endorsement or rejection of the President of the European Council, who at present is simply appointed on a rotating basis.

The very first page of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Lisbon, states that the EU countries desire "to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions." This is not the language of those wishing to create an EU superstate.

Whatever else you may say about it, Lisbon is not a threat to national identity. Saying you support Lisbon because you want an EU superstate is akin to saying you oppose it because you oppose higher taxes, abortion, euthanasia, etc. i.e. a completely irrelevant argument because there is nothing in the treaty regarding these issues.

RandolphEsq

Breezer wrote: »

OK, BrightEyes is as entitled to his/her views as anyone else, but please realize that an EU Superstate is NOT what the EU or the Lisbon Treaty is about. I'm passionately pro-EU, pro-Lisbon, but I'd never support an EU superstate.

Lisbon is about modifying the existing structures of the EU to allow greater fluidity and efficiency of decision making. Modifying them so that they can carry out their existing tasks better, not replacing them with central EU government.

Furthermore, Lisbon reaffirms national identity. It gives a greater role to national parliaments in the decision making process. It gives more power to the European Parliament, the members of which are directly elected in each member state. These powers include the endorsement or rejection of the President of the European Council, who at present is simply appointed on a rotating basis.

The very first page of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Lisbon, states that the EU countries desire "to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions." This is not the language of those wishing to create an EU superstate.

Whatever else you may say about it, Lisbon is not a threat to national identity. Saying you support Lisbon because you want an EU superstate is akin to saying you oppose it because you oppose higher taxes, abortion, euthanasia, etc. i.e. a completely irrelevant argument because there is nothing in the treaty regarding these issues.

We're drinking the same water but it tastes different to each of us

FionnMatthew

If nothing else, I'd have worries that the article on addressing cross-border crime, and on the Council having powers of definition over serious crime on a European scale, and in particular, computer crime, might have profound implications for the prospect of law reform in the area of copyright over the next few years. One of the biggest obstacles to that in the States is the friendliness between Hollywood and Washington. Big government and big business will likely make very little room for public examination of the legitimacy and social value of copyright law in the near future.

This is an issue that has particular interest to young people, IMO, we being the demographic which is the least likely to regard intellectual property law as a legit institution.

Breezer

FionnMatthew wrote: »

This is an issue that has particular interest to young people, IMO, we being the demographic which is the least likely to regard intellectual property law as a legit institution.

While I admit that the RIAA in the US tends to go overboard on things, and I wouldn't like to see that here, I think the issue pales in comparison to the good these reforms could bring regarding prevention of human trafficking, for example.

And let's face it, young people (or not so young) who completely disregard intellectual copyright law will continue to do so regardless of what the EU says on the subject.

ferdi

An FT survey showed that "70% of respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain wanted a vote on the new treaty". Europeans are being denied the opportunity to vote on this 'vital' document by their governments.
why? because they will vote no? mmmmm creamy democracy..

The_Minister

ferdi wrote: »

An FT survey showed that "70% of respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain wanted a vote on the new treaty". Europeans are being denied the opportunity to vote on this 'vital' document by their governments.
why? because they will vote no? mmmmm creamy democracy..

They never voted on European treaties before.
Different countries work in different ways. Ireland requires a referendum, Germany is not allowed have one ('cause of Hitler). We can't tell them to adopt our ways, and have a referendum just because we do. Soveraignty works both ways. Most of their parliments require a two-thirds majority to pass this treaty (in both houses), so its hardly undemocratic.

Breezer

An FT survey showed that "70% of respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain wanted a vote on the new treaty". Europeans are being denied the opportunity to vote on this 'vital' document by their governments.
why? because they will vote no? mmmmm creamy democracy..

This argument has gone round and round. I echo everything The Minister said, and add that France in particular endorsed Sarkozy who made it very clear before his election that part of his Europe policy was to see a reduced form of the EU constitution ratified by parliament.

If people in other countries wanted a vote on EU treaties then they have had plenty of opportunities to call for one before. The responsibility for arranging this lies not with the EU but with their own democratically elected governments.

dajaffa

Already voted yes, g'wan the postal vote!

tywy

Another point to make is, say for example Germany were the country in our situation, do you really believe they'd think, 'Oh Ireland wants a No vote on this, so we better Vote No' I don't think so, I think they would look at the effect on their country.

Red Alert

Any IP tightening would be reason enough to vote no.

Breezer

Red Alert wrote: »

Any IP tightening would be reason enough to vote no.

So on the No side, we have the possibility that there will be IP tightening.

On the Yes side, we have the certainty that:

1. Our tax affairs remain our own responsibility
2. Neutrality continues to be guaranteed through the triple lock system
3. We will have the same Commission representation as all other states*
4. 26 countries closer to oil and gas pipelines will work to ensure energy security for Ireland
5. 26 other countries will support us in the face of natural disaster or terrorist attack in Ireland
6. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be endorsed throughout Europe
7. Increased powers for the MEPs we elect
8. Increased powers for the TDs we elect
9. Protection from potential 'bullying' by the handful of big states due to the new Double Majority voting, where the number of states voting is as important as the number of people they represent

*Under Nice, the number of Commissioners will be reduced anyway. The problem with Nice is that there is no clearly defined system for doing this. Under Nice alone, Germany could end up with 2 permanent Commissioners, and Ireland with one temporary one. Under Lisbon, all states are equal.

And the possibility that

1. The vote will be interpreted as a signal to foreign investors that this is still a gateway to Europe
2. The vote will be interpreted as a signal to the bigger powers in Europe that we still want to play a central role and continue to punch above our weight

A Yes vote gives us a clearly defined path that is very much in Ireland's interest.

A No vote brings an end to 7 or 8 years worth of negotiations and leaves Europe on an uncertain path, where the states will have to start all over again on designing a new system for an efficient union. Meanwhile, China and India's economies continue to boom at our expense.

Your "No Facts" argument doesn't stand up. There have been plenty of facts available for some time now, in both plain English and legalese. Read the booklet from the Referendum Commission. Read their press releases. Read the booklets from Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour. Read the PDF I've attached. Read the consolidated EU Treaties, as amended by Lisbon. Read other posts on these boards from people who have read these documents.

And when you're done reading, PLEASE VOTE YES, for your future, my future and the future of 500 million people!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Breezer wrote: »

So on the No side, we have the possibility that there will be IP tightening.

On the Yes side, we have the certainty that:

1. Our tax affairs remain our own responsibility
2. Neutrality continues to be guaranteed through the triple lock system
3. We will have the same Commission representation as all other states*
4. 26 countries closer to oil and gas pipelines will work to ensure energy security for Ireland
5. 26 other countries will support us in the face of natural disaster or terrorist attack in Ireland
6. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be endorsed throughout Europe
7. Increased powers for the MEPs we elect
8. Increased powers for the TDs we elect
9. Protection from potential 'bullying' by the handful of big states due to the new Double Majority voting, where the number of states voting is as important as the number of people they represent

*Under Nice, the number of Commissioners will be reduced anyway. The problem with Nice is that there is no clearly defined system for doing this. Under Nice alone, Germany could end up with 2 permanent Commissioners, and Ireland with one temporary one. Under Lisbon, all states are equal.

And the possibility that

1. The vote will be interpreted as a signal to foreign investors that this is still a gateway to Europe
2. The vote will be interpreted as a signal to the bigger powers in Europe that we still want to play a central role and continue to punch above our weight

A Yes vote gives us a clearly defined path that is very much in Ireland's interest.

A No vote brings an end to 7 or 8 years worth of negotiations and leaves Europe on an uncertain path, where the states will have to start all over again on designing a new system for an efficient union. Meanwhile, China and India's economies continue to boom at our expense.

Your "No Facts" argument doesn't stand up. There have been plenty of facts available for some time now, in both plain English and legalese. Read the booklet from the Referendum Commission. Read their press releases. Read the booklets from Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour. Read the PDF I've attached. Read the consolidated EU Treaties, as amended by Lisbon. Read other posts on these boards from people who have read these documents.

And when you're done reading, PLEASE VOTE YES, for your future, my future and the future of 500 million people!

Real balanced opinion:pac:

Breezer

Sean_K wrote: »

Real balanced opinion:pac:

It was a direct response to Red Alert. I've been urging people to vote Yes for months on these boards, I'm hardly going to start coming out with arguments against my own opinion the day before the referendum am I?

Of course there's other arguments for a No vote but tbh I can't see the logic in 99% of those I've heard, since they've all been debunked countless times. Unless, like Panda way back in this thread, you're completely against the military or something, which I also disagree with but at least it's a valid reason to vote No.

ferdi

well i couldnt be bothered trying to convince anyone but i'm opposed to an EU constitution (lisbon treaty), i'm opposed to Empire (barroso) and the building of power blocs. I'm opposed to the way in which the YES kampf (;)) have attempted to twist people's arms..."we will pay the price", "chaos will ensue", "pariahs of europe" bla bla bla...i guess i was never going to be a yes voter since i view the EU largely as a beaurocratic basketcase at this stage and I do not believe lisbon is the answer..sure, Ireland have done well out of the EU but only by leeching massive grants and investments made up of other countries' tax euro dollars and putting very little back in. Hardly utopia, not even fair or practical.

Breezer

And it's dead.

Funny, I thought college students would be more radical than the general population, but our poll didn't exactly reflect the national one did it? Thanks to everyone who voted yes. This is officially the end of Cowen's honeymoon period; I sincerely hope he's up to the task of fixing this mess.

jimi_t

Breezer wrote: »

And it's dead.

Funny, I thought college students would be more radical than the general population, but our poll didn't exactly reflect the national one did it? Thanks to everyone who voted yes. This is officially the end of Cowen's honeymoon period; I sincerely hope he's up to the task of fixing this mess.

Realistically there's going to have to be a re-vote. In any case I'm sure it will be easy for Cowen to do a proportionately better job considering his predecessor was one of a very small list of european head of states caught for what is, effectively, tax fraud and perjury. It's the end of a honeymoon period for Ireland both politically and economically, but it would be spurious to suggest that the Lisbon treaty had more than a bit-part to play in it.

Breezer

jimi_t wrote: »

Realistically there's going to have to be a re-vote. In any case I'm sure it will be easy for Cowen to do a proportionately better job considering his predecessor was one of a very small list of european head of states caught for what is, effectively, tax fraud and perjury. It's the end of a honeymoon period for Ireland both politically and economically, but it would be spurious to suggest that the Lisbon treaty had more than a bit-part to play in it.

I meant for Cowen personally rather than Ireland, although there's certainly major implications for the country there.

There will be a re-vote, because a change is needed, but when and on what? After Nice 1 it was made known quite specifically what the reason was for rejection. The treaty was altered, and passed the second time with a much larger turnout.

This is different. Lisbon was already the altered version of the constitutional treaty, there was a large turnout and from what I can see it wasn't the content of the treaty that a lot of people voted against. It was a perceived lack of information, an objection to Europe having too much power, the perceived chance that abortion etc. would be forced on us, and a rejection of "a bad deal" (without suggesting what a better one would be - have a look at the politics forum to see what I mean).

They will come up with something, because they have to. But I'm really not sure what form it'll take, and I doubt Barroso, Sarkozy or indeed Cowen have the foggiest idea either.

jimi_t

Breezer wrote: »

There will be a re-vote, because a change is needed, but when and on what?

No, there will be a revote simply because there was already one forced on two far larger and more important countries. It would be spurious to suggest otherwise. This is the reality of the already increased beuracratic powers you are so willing to embrace.

This is different. Lisbon was already the altered version of the constitutional treaty, there was a large turnout and from what I can see it wasn't the content of the treaty that a lot of people voted against.

Obviously you haven't set foot in dublin city centre or any major university campus around the country in the last week or two. Whatever one might say about the 'No' side, they certainly did more to promote their cause and simplify the legalese for the hoi polloi than the government backed 'Yes' campaign. To suggest that the treaty was overturned because people didn't understand it is a fairly condescending standpoint - that said when I got to your next comment

---

It was a perceived lack of information

and

Funny, I thought college students would be more radical than the general population

---

Bemoaning this from the 'Yes' point of view after the utter DISGRACE of and complete contempt displayed by the YFG poster campaign... I could argue for pages using cliches like 'just desserts' and 'you reap what you sow' but I think everyone more or less has the...picture

They will come up with something, because they have to. But I'm really not sure what form it'll take, and I doubt Barroso, Sarkozy or indeed Cowen have the foggiest idea either.

Oh I'd say Sarkozy has a fair idea of what hes after. Cowen, on the other hand, can't even inhale for gods sake :rolleyes:

Breezer

jimi_t wrote: »

No, there will be a revote simply because there was already one forced on two far larger and more important countries. It would be spurious to suggest otherwise. This is the reality of the already increased beuracratic powers you are so willing to embrace.

Similarly to Nice, the original proposal was altered and the altered version submitted for ratification, not the original. It was broadly similar, yes, but then so was Nice 2, with an important clause added. This is how negotiation works: to prevent a stalemate, each side gradually relinquishes ground on what it will and won't accept and a compromise is eventually reached.

Obviously you haven't set foot in dublin city centre or any major university campus around the country in the last week or two. Whatever one might say about the 'No' side, they certainly did more to promote their cause and simplify the legalese for the hoi polloi than the government backed 'Yes' campaign.

If telling blatant lies about abortion, euthanasia, taxes, representation on the Commission etc. can be considered simplifying the legalese, then yes, they did a rather good job. However I will hand it to them that they ran a very vocal and energetic campaign which Fianna Fáil in particular would do well to learn from.

To suggest that the treaty was overturned because people didn't understand it is a fairly condescending standpoint

So why was "I don't understand the treaty" the most popular, unprompted reason given by people intending to vote no in the tns/mrbi poll published in the Irish Times a week before the vote? Why are intelligent people on this board claiming we received no facts about the treaty? Why did many, many people I spoke to say "I don't have enough information, I don't know what it's about, so I'm voting No"? I'm not being condescending, I'm listening to what's being said.

Bemoaning this from the 'Yes' point of view after the utter DISGRACE of and complete contempt displayed by the YFG poster campaign... I could argue for pages using cliches like 'just desserts' and 'you reap what you sow' but I think everyone more or less has the...picture

Look back in this thread; I gave out about those posters as much as you are now.

Oh I'd say Sarkozy has a fair idea of what hes after. Cowen, on the other hand, can't even inhale for gods sake :rolleyes:

Well he'll need to learn how to do that, and a lot more, very quickly if Ireland is to play a full part in the EU as it moves forward. They're now mooting the possibility of the other 26 countries proceeding with Lisbon anyway, with us on the outside. That's a recipe for complete chaos.

jimi_t

Breezer wrote: »

Similarly to Nice, the original proposal was altered and the altered version submitted for ratification, not the original...

I could give the generic german quote here, but this was practically (rather than theoretically), for all intents and purposes, the same document. I'm well aware of how 'negotiation' works, but I'm adamant that if a re-vote is implemented, the 'reformed' treaty will be nothing more than an aesthetic shuffle of the current one.

If telling blatant lies about abortion, euthanasia, taxes, representation on the Commission etc. can be considered simplifying the legalese, then yes, they did a rather good job.

The only dissuading factor in voting No for me was the moral problem of siding with the Catholic church in Ireland and those complete lunatics Libertas. They're two groups who are always going to misrepresent the truth, regardless of the both the issue and the magnitude of representation.

They are certianly not indicative of the intelligent, informed portion of the 'no' demographic, much in the same way that a neo-nazi group might publicly associate themselves with the 'Yes' demographic. Its just a pity they have the money to launch such eyecatching and widereaching campaigns, it only provides ammunition for those trying to demean our victory.

So why was "I don't understand the treaty" the most popular, unprompted reason given by people intending to vote no in the tns/mrbi poll published in the Irish Times a week before the vote? Why are intelligent people on this board claiming we received no facts about the treaty?Why did many, many people I spoke to say "I don't have enough information, I don't know what it's about, so I'm voting No"? I'm not being condescending, I'm listening to what's being said.

I'm not arguing that treaty was hard to understand, nor that it was generally recognised as such; I'm simply making the point that to imply that one of the primary reasons the treaty was overturned was because people couldn't muster up the braincells to comprehend the text is a simplistic and demeaning view of democracy itself in Ireland. Why are university students on this board complaining about a lack of easily available information? Because of poster campaigns like the YFG, and the more 1984 esque government backed ones with their implication of violence and ruin for the plain people of Ireland.

Look back in this thread; I gave out about those posters as much as you are now.

Well that poses an interesting quandry - If you can't even trust your chosen political party (and YFG prides itself on being a particularly 'grassroots' operation) to adequately represent the views of you and those who you hold in high esteem at a national level...

I mean for gods sake, that Irish Times article with the YFG spokesperson

Irish Times wrote:

Among the benefits to young people, he listed opportunities to study and work abroad, the euro, massive EU investment in Ireland, peace, equality and environmental protection.

This, in its own way, is as blatant a misrepresentation of the truth as Libertas ' or the Churches' campaigns.This is implying that by voting no we suddenly lose peace, equality and environmental protection? That the concept of erasmus and free trade is gone? That our currency will collapse? There ain't no massive EU investment in Ireland anymore to lose either.

"Our campaign will engage with young people ... outlining its positive aspects. We will try to excite the imaginations of younger voters on Europe, rather than pontificate to them about legalities, or scare them into voting Yes," he said.

i.e. appeal to the lowest common denominator with a few risque images. Can't wait till Reuters picks it up and it is heralded as part of our 'iconography of ignorance' by various right-wing European media outlets to try and demean and misrepresent our democratic privilege. This could very well do more damage to Irelands political and cultural image than the IRA ever did.

Even on a literal level, not *one* of the majority Yes campaigns ever defined their points of contention to relate them to the treaty, nor did they cite any references bar the odd ambiguous threat about the 80s. If the treaty was as clearcut as you make it out to be, why couldn't *any* of the majority Yes campaigns ever simply state all the positive aspects of voting Yes like the No campaign did? (Also, if you're going to argue, please valididate your argument with photographic evidence otherwise this will just get messy).

Well he'll need to learn how to do that, and a lot more, very quickly if Ireland is to play a full part in the EU as it moves forward. They're now mooting the possibility of the other 26 countries proceeding with Lisbon anyway, with us on the outside. That's a recipe for complete chaos.

Why? There's no need to pacify me, I've read through *all* your posts (and I do mean your last 100 posts or so) and have been an active reader of the politics forum since I joined boards. I can see nothing that would persuade me that this is true, but I am open to examining any new evidence.

Breezer

jimi_t wrote: »

I could give the generic german quote here, but this was practically (rather than theoretically), for all intents and purposes, the same document. I'm well aware of how 'negotiation' works, but I'm adamant that if a re-vote is implemented, the 'reformed' treaty will be nothing more than an aesthetic shuffle of the current one.

An aesthetic re-shuffle would be a disaster. This is how Nice 2 was perceived by many people, and were it to happen again I feel a lot of people, even those who voted yes, would be tempted to vote no in an effort to defend democracy. I'd have serious doubts myself in fact. That's why I said above that it'll be very interesting to see what the EU comes up with now.

The only dissuading factor in voting No for me was the moral problem of siding with the Catholic church in Ireland and those complete lunatics Libertas. They're two groups who are always going to misrepresent the truth, regardless of the both the issue and the magnitude of representation.

The Catholic Church, in fairness, didn't take a position on the treaty. They merely pointed out that in the Church's opinion, the treaty posed no threat to our existing abortion laws, and distanced themselves from Cóir.

They are certianly not indicative of the intelligent, informed portion of the 'no' demographic, much in the same way that a neo-nazi group might publicly associate themselves with the 'Yes' demographic. Its just a pity they have the money to launch such eyecatching and widereaching campaigns, it only provides ammunition for those trying to demean our victory.

I agree. I never for one moment suggested that everyone who voted no is a lunatic. If you disagree with the EU performing military operations, for example, then I can see why you would be against this treaty. Even on the loss of the Commissioner, I respect those who understood the proposed system and disagreed with it. However, according to polls, a large amount of the No side simply didn't understand what the treaty was about, or voted in order to protest against unrelated issues.

I'm not arguing that treaty was hard to understand, nor that it was generally recognised as such; I'm simply making the point that to imply that one of the primary reasons the treaty was overturned was because people couldn't muster up the braincells to comprehend the text is a simplistic and demeaning view of democracy itself in Ireland.

The statistics would unfortunately appear to say otherwise.

Why are university students on this board complaining about a lack of easily available information?

I have no idea. There was plenty of information easily available. There are links all over this board. I had some in my signature, as did many other posters. The Referendum Commission posted a booklet to every house in the country, as did the Department of Foreign Affairs. A Google search for "lisbon consolidated" brings up, as the first search result, the official consolidated text of the 2 treaties being amended by Lisbon, which, although worded somewhat grandiosely, are very readable without the need for any cross-referencing.

Well that poses an interesting quandry - If you can't even trust your chosen political party (and YFG prides itself on being a particularly 'grassroots' operation) to adequately represent the views of you and those who you hold in high esteem at a national level...

I was, admittedly, not particularly impressed by YFG's campaign. However, I felt that FG ran an excellent campaign. I have provided an example of their literature in the links below, and more is still available on their website.

i.e. appeal to the lowest common denominator with a few risque images. Can't wait till Reuters picks it up and it is heralded as part of our 'iconography of ignorance' by various right-wing European media outlets to try and demean and misrepresent our democratic privilege. This could very well do more damage to Irelands political and cultural image than the IRA ever did.

Come off it. The posters were stupid, but one harebrained aspect to a campaign run by a youth political organisation doesn't exactly compare to the murderous campaign of a terrorist organisation.

Even on a literal level, not *one* of the majority Yes campaigns ever defined their points of contention to relate them to the treaty, nor did they cite any references bar the odd ambiguous threat about the 80s. If the treaty was as clearcut as you make it out to be, why couldn't *any* of the majority Yes campaigns ever simply state all the positive aspects of voting Yes like the No campaign did? (Also, if you're going to argue, please valididate your argument with photographic evidence otherwise this will just get messy).

See the following:
http://www.finegael.ie//page.cfm/area/information/page/What%20is%20The%20Lisbon%20Reform%20Treary/pkey/1295
http://www.finegael.ie//page.cfm/area/information/page/Reasons%20to%20Vote%20Yes/pkey/1295
http://www.finegael.ie/uploads/docs/FG%20Lisbon%20Guide.pdf
http://www.finegael.ie//page.cfm/area/information/page/The%20Treaty%20Summarised/pkey/1295

Why? There's no need to pacify me, I've read through *all* your posts (and I do mean your last 100 posts or so) and have been an active reader of the politics forum since I joined boards. I can see nothing that would persuade me that this is true, but I am open to examining any new evidence.

Then you probably found out a lot about Apple MacBooks I assume you're looking for my source on the proposal to have the other countries operating under Lisbon, rather than why this would be a crisis:

Rte.ie wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0614/eulisbon.html?rss

A leading think tank has suggested that the Lisbon Treaty could still come into force within the European Union, despite Ireland's rejection of it.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio, Director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, Daniel Gros, said he believed that the 26 other member states could ratify the Treaty without Ireland's involvement.

Additionally, on the front page of Saturday's Irish Times:

[A senior German government source stated] "Ratification will continue and either Ireland votes again or we try to come up with a new text, something on which 27 countries will simply not be able to agree."

...

Sources close to Mr Sarkozy said there were only two solutions: for the Irish to vote again, or for an as yet undefined legal mechanism to bind Ireland to EU institutions if Ireland does not ratify the treaty.

...

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano was equally critical, calling for states obstructing integration to be left out of the EU. "Now is the time for a courageous choice by those who want coherent progress in building Europe, leaving out those who despite solemn, signed pledges threaten to block it," he said in a statement.

While I think Sarkozy's system would be completely unworkable (although it's very worrying that this is even being suggested), and I don't believe we can be asked to leave the EU, I think it's very clear that this is being taken very, very seriously in Europe, and SF were simply wrong in telling people that "a better deal" is readily available.

gliondar

Today I'm proud to be Irish. To hell with you Eamon Gilmore!

The Minister:
Jean Monnet, the principle architect of European integration said [and I paraphrase] "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."[4]
and
"Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal."[5]

I say down with the planned European Super-state!