Lisbon - NO ; Cash for Pig Idustry - Yes Please

RobBrn

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

pseudonym1

Mr. Cowen is that you!? :eek:

Something stinks about the pigs and there is definatly something sinister going on regarding poltics.. Maybe its a lisbion thing scare mongering tactics or sumit!! mmm ..

mikemac

A lot of ranting in these threads but nobody is mentioning that 1,400 got laid off this week
And it could be a few weeks before they are back to work

And sure, this is an export business realy, the majority of pork is sold abroad. Tough times

Del2005

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

passive

Del2005 wrote: »

every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

who voted in those politicians? and what did Irish people base their voting on that might make people wary of putting documents like that to a public vote? (hint... it wasn't the contents of the treaty)

Highsider

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

So lets just vote yes to Lisbon to keep the EU happy.:rolleyes:

passive

Highsider wrote: »

So lets just vote yes to Lisbon to keep the EU happy.:rolleyes:

And keep our heads above water

Don Diego

passive wrote: »

who voted in those politicians? and what did Irish people base their voting on that might make people wary of putting documents like that to a public vote? (hint... it wasn't the contents of the treaty)

Just because you vote for a politition it doesnt give them free reign to then vote for or pass legislation as they wish. They work for us, not the other way around. Also, people can vote for or against anything they wish regardless of their reasons.

passive

Don Diego wrote: »

Just because you vote for a politition it doesnt give them free reign to then vote for or pass legislation as they wish. They work for us, not the other way around. Also, people can vote for or against anything they wish regardless of their reasons.

well yes, they can, but it doesn't make the reasons any more valid or the consequences any less serious for the country. And it raises questions about whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

And actually, voting for a politician does, generally, give them the authority to vote for and pass legislation... It's kiiiinda the point

Don Diego

passive wrote: »

well yes, they can, but it doesn't make the reasons any more valid or the consequences any less serious for the country. And it raises questions about whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

And actually, voting for a politician does, generally, give them the authority to vote for and pass legislation... It's kiiiinda the point

Well thats a whole different can of worms. Should only people who are pro Lisbon be allowed to vote. Wouldnt want those pesky nay-sayers ruining the party eh? We should default to our betters who know whats best for us I take it?

Voting for a politician gives them temporary powers on behalf of the people. The people voted and the politicians and the pro lisbon side need to respect that. Cant win them all. Such is life;)

passive

Don Diego wrote: »

Well thats a whole different can of worms. Should only people who are pro Lisbon be allowed to vote.

passive wrote: »

whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

If you're acknowledging that people that know what's actually in the treaty = people who are pro-Lisbon, I really don't think we're having an argument and reckon you should get your teacher cap on and go help inform people, rather than ****ing the country over just to be obstinate.

Cant win them all

Yeah, but nobody actually won . We're all in the same boat, so even if some of us were manipulated and confused into shooting down a good move for the country, and even if some of them (still) feel proud of what they perceive as a victory, we're in favour of taking another shot at it instead of standing around doing nothing while the nation and its neighbours are stalled and uncertain . Think nothing of it. It's because we care.

Anyway, I hope the EU helps us out and resentment over Lisbon doesn't affect anything in that area. Maybe people will rethink the situation without any other misfortune coming our way and our friends helping us while wondering why that's all we talk to them for.

Don Diego

passive wrote: »

If you're acknowledging that people that know what's actually in the treaty = people who are pro-Lisbon, I really don't think we're having an argument and reckon you should get your teacher cap on and go help inform people, rather than ****ing the country over just to be obstinate.

Not I'm not saying that the pro lisbon side = people who know whats in the treaty. Thats a completley black and white arguement. People from both sides engaged in scare tactics and propaganda. People from both sides didnt know what was in it and listened to uninformed people goad them into a decision.
However if it had passed do you think the no side would have been entertained for a second on a re-run? Yet because the yes side failed in their effort we're being guilted into getting a re-run and voting the correct way this time.

passive wrote: »

Yeah, but nobody actually won . We're all in the same boat, so even if some of us were manipulated and confused into shooting down a good move for the country, and even if some of them (still) feel proud of what they perceive as a victory, we're in favour of taking another shot at it instead of standing around doing nothing while the nation and its neighbours are stalled and uncertain . Think nothing of it. It's because we care.

Anyway, I hope the EU helps us out and resentment over Lisbon doesn't affect anything in that area. Maybe people will rethink the situation without any other misfortune coming our way and our friends helping us while wondering why that's all we talk to them for.

Yes but some people don't think it was a good move for the country. Are those peoples views not worth as much? I don't understand why the EU would have bad feelings over it seeing as the rules stated that if one country rejected it it was dead. Those were the rules and we played by them. Are you suggesting that the rules, that were aggreed upon by all, should be disregarded when it suits? All in all it doesnt bode well if a member country can be bullied like this when brussells doesnt get its way.

mountainyman

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

That's bollocks we've got much more in aid than the vcalue of the fish.

Del2005

passive wrote: »

well yes, they can, but it doesn't make the reasons any more valid or the consequences any less serious for the country. And it raises questions about whether or not they should have been asked to vote in the first place if their reasons fall under any heading other than "stuff what's in de treaty"

And actually, voting for a politician does, generally, give them the authority to vote for and pass legislation... It's kiiiinda the point

Yes we voted for the politicians and they made the law that we have to vote on this. We voted no yet the politicians won't listen to us. When the French and Dutch voted no their politicians listened and got it changed. Who's working for who? So they have the right to pass legislation, but they also have to respect the public vote when they ask for it.

passive wrote: »

If you're acknowledging that people that know what's actually in the treaty = people who are pro-Lisbon, I really don't think we're having an argument and reckon you should get your teacher cap on and go help inform people, rather than ****ing the country over just to be obstinate.



Yeah, but nobody actually won . We're all in the same boat, so even if some of us were manipulated and confused into shooting down a good move for the country, and even if some of them (still) feel proud of what they perceive as a victory, we're in favour of taking another shot at it instead of standing around doing nothing while the nation and its neighbours are stalled and uncertain . Think nothing of it. It's because we care.

Anyway, I hope the EU helps us out and resentment over Lisbon doesn't affect anything in that area. Maybe people will rethink the situation without any other misfortune coming our way and our friends helping us while wondering why that's all we talk to them for.

passive wrote: »

who voted in those politicians? and what did Irish people base their voting on that might make people wary of putting documents like that to a public vote? (hint... it wasn't the contents of the treaty)

Your making the assumption here that everyone who voted no just did it to p!ss the government off. That's belittling the no vote by people who actually read and understood the document and thought it wasn't the best for Ireland and the EU.

Also how many people voted yes because they where told to by the politicians, are they not as bad as the people who voted no to annoy them? They have no idea what they where voting yes to, they where just told to vote yes by politicians who a lot of people in this country don't trust.

passive

Don Diego wrote: »

Not I'm not saying that the pro lisbon side = people who know whats in the treaty. Thats a completley black and white arguement. People from both sides engaged in scare tactics and propaganda. People from both sides didnt know what was in it and listened to uninformed people goad them into a decision.

well tbh I was being a bit facetious there... I said there should be another vote because people voted for reasons unrelated to the treaty. You said I was saying only yes voters should be allowed vote, so I inferred that you had thus said yes voters = informed voters... Didn't actually think you meant that at all, and I don't think all yes voters were well informed.

But I do think a larger portion of no voters were misinformed or tricked, and that uninformed no voting was based moreso on lies or ungrounded fears, whereas uninformed yes voting was based on "the people i've elected to represent me negotiated this and are saying it is best for the running of the country. All of the actual political parties are for this, so it must be in the best interests of the country they're trying to run,"

which I think is a better reason to go along with something, but obviously it would be better if everybody who didn't have at least a vague (but accurate) understanding of what the treaty was/wasn't about had abstained.

If you don't know, don't vote either yes or no because neither of those options are a default. Yes is signing up to a thing, no is rejecting that same thing, in a situation where *something* needs to happen, so voting no wasn't a matter of keeping things as they are so much as having to find a new something... so...you should only have voted no if you were specifically and actually opposed to that particular thing, rather than just uncertain/uninformed.

However if it had passed do you think the no side would have been entertained for a second on a re-run? Yet because the yes side failed in their effort we're being guilted into getting a re-run and voting the correct way this time.

as has been discussed numerous times, if a no party was in power, or the govt/enough people to cause a referendum felt that we should withdraw from the treaty or the union, then yes there would be another vote. The reason another vote is on the cards now is because the EU can't continue as is, some changes are needed, and an examination of the situation after our rejection of the Lisbon treaty showed, very clearly, that there was no particular feature of the treaty that any sizeable portion of voters wanted to have changed.
Since there were no real improvements to be made, and something does need to happen, it makes sense to ask people again if this might be acceptable to them (only this time with proper information, hopefully)

Yes but some people don't think it was a good move for the country. Are those peoples views not worth as much?

no, the opinions of people who had problems with aspects of Lisbon and thought we could actually do better out of it are perfectly valid. But I think even you will admit that they're an extreme minority of the people who voted no in the last referendum?

I don't understand why the EU would have bad feelings over it seeing as the rules stated that if one country rejected it it was dead. Those were the rules and we played by them. Are you suggesting that the rules, that were aggreed upon by all, should be disregarded when it suits? All in all it doesnt bode well if a member country can be bullied like this when brussells doesnt get its way.

Now you're just being silly... The rules weren't "if anybody stalls or stops in ratification the treaty is dead." It was "This will be implimented if/when everybody is okay with it"

WE negotiated the treaty, and had a huge role in forming it. It is good for us, and benefits us. What do you actually want them to do, given the huge question mark over why our referendum turned out a no? Let us rewrite the whole thing, in ways that benefit us? You know that would probably just come out as the same treaty again, right?

passive

Del2005 wrote: »

You're making the assumption here that everyone who voted no just did it to p!ss the government off. That's belittling the no vote by people who actually read and understood the document and thought it wasn't the best for Ireland and the EU.

Also how many people voted yes because they where told to by the politicians, are they not as bad as the people who voted no to annoy them? They have no idea what they where voting yes to, they where just told to vote yes by politicians who a lot of people in this country don't trust.

I acknowledge the validity of the people who actually thought it wasn't the best in my other post (albeit after you posted this) but valid as their point of view may be, they were a minority. And I didn't say everyone voted no to piss the government off. That was just part of it, coupled with misinformation and fear of the unknown.

The point was that saying it is somehow invalid or inadequate for other countries to ratify this without a public vote is foolish, at best, and sly manipulation at worst. The many valid reasons that referendums are not used for changing other countries' constitutions have been discussed at length, and we have no right to criticise them when our own referendum proved that public votes reflect far more than the issue at hand.

If we were asked to vote on a budget, particularly a difficult one in financially hard times, do you think the government would be able to sell it to the people?

or as regards the power to manipulate the people; If a referendum was held in the US on September 12th 2001 asking "should we nuke the ****ing hell out of the Middle East," do you think it would have come out anything but a yes, and that that would have represented the informed, right choice of the people and the course of action the country should take?

and I covered your final bit in detail in my other post..

Del2005

mountainyman wrote: »

That's bollocks we've got much more in aid than the vcalue of the fish.

There was a documentary on several years ago that we gave away the exclusive rights to millions of square kms of fishing grounds when we joined the EC. If we'd kept these rights and sold the fish all the money we got from the EU would have been nowhere near what we would have made selling the fish. The Spanish trawlers have and still are taking huge amounts of fish from our waters and the trawlers from the other EU countries are also taking huge amounts out.

That's not to say we could have caught and sold all that fish, or that we'd have got as much benefit as we got from the EU money, but we did give away billions of Euro worth of fishing rights.

The_Conductor

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

Yes- that would be 34% of Europe's fishing waters, and 2.8% of Europe's fishing quota...... Love to know what the rational for conceding this was....... Ooops- it was probably along the lines of you bail out our farmers, and in exchange we won't acknowledge the plundering of our fish. FFS- we even arrested a Spanish trawler up the Shannon estuary last June.......

BroomBurner

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!! THE PORK WAS PURPOSEFULLY TAINTED TO FORCE US TO VOTE YES TO LISBON!!*





*whoops, forgot this wasn't CT forum. And no, I'm not RTDH

passive

BroomBurner wrote: »

*whoops, forgot this wasn't CT forum. And no, I'm not RTDH

*lowers castration gun (i.e; grenade launcher)* oh... watch it with the small text, man, I almost didn't see that last bit... nearly took out a sane person's ability to create spawn..

Nehaxak

A Euro sceptic might say the only reason Ireland was ever in the EU was so the rest of Europe could plunder the fish stocks around our costline with impunity, lining the pockets of corrupt civil servants in return and subsidising farmers in Ireland with enough to keep them quiet.

I'm not a Euro sceptic though so I won't say anything like that.

passive

Nehaxak wrote: »

A Euro sceptic might say the only reason Ireland was ever in the EU was so the rest of Europe could plunder the fish stocks around our costline with impunity, lining the pockets of corrupt civil servants in return and subsidising farmers in Ireland with enough to keep them quiet.

I'm not a Euro sceptic though so I won't say anything like that.

Oh good... 'cos everyone who goes down that line of discussion starts coming out with bull**** figures for the umphinity trillion fishies we'd have caught and the mountains of gold we'd all be living off, and ignoring how much we all prefer being a distribution point for technology and a popular business spot than working with f*cking fish.

The_Conductor

Nehaxak wrote: »

A Euro sceptic might say the only reason Ireland was ever in the EU was so the rest of Europe could plunder the fish stocks around our costline with impunity, lining the pockets of corrupt civil servants in return and subsidising farmers in Ireland with enough to keep them quiet.

I'm not a Euro sceptic though so I won't say anything like that.

In all fairness- it was probably the politicians who were corrupt, not the civil servants. Most of the civil servants were just happy to have jobs. Seriously though- I do think that it was a concession that was made in exchange for structural funds, and funding for farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. People keep harping on about everything we've gotten from the EU, without ever acknowledging that we paid a price, and a high price, for those benefits from the EU. We sold our entire fishing industry, and our main national resource, as an island state, up the creek. Thats the price we paid.

Dinter

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

Well I have to say I read a lot of the information available about the treaty and I can't say I remember reading about the "Pig compensation Clause". Of course that could be because the treaty was deliberately made hard to understand but I think it's probably more to do with the fact that it's not mentioned.

Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant section, if there is one and your post isn't just an example of circular logic which, let's be honest, is no logic at all.

We're in exactly the same position as we were prior to the referendum. That's the whole point. It wasn't a retrograde step to vote no despite what our shining beacons of good sense in government might infer.

You claim that by rejecting moving further into Europe we've, in a sense, moved away. We haven't. Exactly the same treaties, rules and regulations that were there previously still are there. It will be interesting to note over the coming weeks whether Europe will use the pig crisis as an opportunity to further degrade our capacity to have democratic free will.

Nehaxak

Maybe if I grew up on a farm, had family on a farm, relatives, anything at all farm related - I might think different but I don't so I honestly really don't care.
I'm not apathetic, I just don't care about farmers in Ireland, most of them have been getting tons of money from the EU over the years in subsidies and whatnot, have loads of land, houses for their kids blah blah blah...
While the rest of us had to get on with it and work where we could and make do with whatever was going.

So to the OP, don't let it surprise you any further that farmers are asking for a handout again, no matter if it's from the EU or elsewhere. When the going gets tough, they hold out the begging cap once more.

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

Really?? You think An Irish government would have slapped a tax on fish to reign in all this supposed money we lost from our fish by being in the EU and we would have had better road's rail and other infrastructure?? than we have now not to mention low taxes?

Ridiculous.

Pardon the pun but this red herring comes up every now and again and it's over played usually by Eurosceptics that probably dont know one end of a fish from the other.

Dinter

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?? You think An Irish government would have slapped a tax on fish to reign in all this supposed money we lost from our fish by being in the EU and we would have had better road's rail and other infrastructure?? than we have now not to mention low taxes?

A quota system could have been introduced for foreign vessels as easily by the Irish Government as it was by the EU.

Em, also you do realise fish are actually worth money? They can be sold as easily as any other commodity. It would take more policing though.

Anyway even though I don't think the benefits to our infrastructure would have accrued as easily as they did without our membership of the EU I don't think it's beneficial to ignore what we've paid over. Nothing happens in a vacuum and the EU is not and never has been a charity.

passive

Dinter wrote: »

We're in exactly the same position as we were prior to the referendum. That's the whole point. It wasn't a retrograde step to vote no despite what our shining beacons of good sense in government might infer.
.

me: If you don't know, don't vote either yes or no because neither of those options are a default. Yes is signing up to a thing, no is rejecting that same thing, in a situation where *something* needs to happen, so voting no wasn't a matter of keeping things as they are so much as having to find a new something... so...you should only have voted no if you were specifically and actually opposed to that particular thing, rather than just uncertain/uninformed.

The exact same position... except for the fact that we're the only thing standing between the EU and a slightly improved system of running things, and the current system needs to be updated in some way to take account of the new size and various other housekeeping things... in...some way... some kind of treaty...

Run_to_da_hills

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

Precisely, you have it, this whole pork thing was orchestrated by the Government and EU ministers at a secret meeting last week, there is probably nothing wrong with our pork, its all a ploy to get our the Irish to bend over back wards. Well timed.

passive

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Precisely, you have it, this whole pork thing was orchestrated by the Government and EU ministers at a secret meeting last week, there is probably nothing wrong with our pork, its all a ploy to get our the Irish to bend over back wards. Well timed.

Aha! I've been waiting for you! *grenade*

+1 for sanity...

Boskowski

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other. How do you connect the two things I don't know. This is a child's logic.

The_Minister

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU.

If you look in the EU forum you wil see that this arguement has been taken apart numerous times. We got bac far more than we gave them.

Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

Actually, no.
Two of the countries that voted on it passed it, and overall more people voted for it.
Some countries are actually forbidden from having a referendum by their constitution.

The_Conductor

What I would like to know is why the company who precipitated the debacle are not being held culpable for any financial damages arising from the mess? They screwed up- why is it up to the government or Europe to bail them, and the industry out? Ultimately- even if its an EU bailout- we are all EU taxpayers, and will pay for it one way or another. Surely this company has some sort of indemnity insurance to cover themselves against any unforeseen events arising out of their (now known to be) tainted food supplies?

Why are they not being held responsible for their actions?

As a total aside- I understand its a family run business, with the ironic surname of "Hogg"........

Nehaxak

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Precisely, you have it, this whole pork thing was orchestrated by the Government and EU ministers at a secret meeting last week, there is probably nothing wrong with our pork, its all a ploy to get our the Irish to bend over back wards. Well timed.

Strange thing about the Irish though, push us too far and we'll just tell them all to Fck off with themselves. Protest to get the government out then vote Sinn Fein in with a 90% landslide victory, next referendum we'll vote no with an 80% vote against and a 90% turnout, proceed to ask for a vote on continued EU membership then vote ourselves out of the EU and open up trade agreements with China, Russia and South American countries along with creating a trade swap agreement with Venezuela for their oil and Cuba for their Doctors, sacking all the consultants in Ireland and banishing Mary Harney to Dalkey Island for ten years.

I'm going out for a smoke...

passive

smccarrick wrote: »

What I would like to know is why the company who precipitated the debacle are not being held culpable for any financial damages arising from the mess?

it came out like 3 days ago. Hold your horses pigs.

Run_to_da_hills

passive wrote: »

Aha! I've been waiting for you! *grenade*

+1 for sanity...

Im not over yet, if we vote YES give it a couple of years and we will be all branded like pigs. :pac:

Darragh29

An update on this from RTE, the EU have said we will not be getting any money from the EU to sort this out...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1209/pork.html

techdiver

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

If we vote NO on an internal referendum such as an ammendment to our own constitution to allow for new laws does that makes us anti-Irish?

Voting no to a referendum does not stand for a complete rejection of the EU, that attitude is part of the initial problem in the first place!

Jesus1222

RobBrn wrote: »

How ridiculous can we get.
We said no to Lisbon.
We are perceived throughout the EU as rejecting the EU by that one
Now we would like the EU to bail out the problems in the pig industry in Ireland.

For 30 years the EU poured vast amounts of money into Ireland.
And then the Irish People bit the hand that fed them.
Always something advised against.

We could be hanging on to the edge of the EU or even worse in the coming months
Can we really expect the EU to give us money now?

By we I presume you mean a majority, by "now we" I presume you mean pig farmers.

How many of those who voted no to Lisbon are pro-EU? I'd say about 80-90%. You can be anti-Lisbon and pro-EU. There is no obligation on anyone to vote blindly whatever is handed down to us by EU bigwigs. If EU citizens were allowed to exercise their democratic right to vote for such a treaty it's likely that many states would reject it.

passive

Jesus1222 wrote: »

By we I presume you mean a majority, by "now we" I presume you mean pig farmers.

How many of those who voted no to Lisbon are pro-EU? I'd say about 80-90%. You can be anti-Lisbon and pro-EU. There is no obligation on anyone to vote blindly whatever is handed down to us by EU bigwigs. If EU citizens were allowed to exercise their democratic right to vote for such a treaty it's likely that many states would reject it.

so which parts of the treaty were you against then?

Jesus1222

passive wrote: »

so which parts of the treaty were you against then?

I was opposed to the threatening behaviour and language of politicians in trying to scare people into voting for this. I support a democratic EU, not an autocratic EU. I'm opposed to incremental steps towards militarisation (no matter how small those steps are or appear to be). And although it is not our right I believe the Irish vote was a reflection of not just Irish opinion but opinion across the EU.

dlofnep

Right, let's vote yes for "money".

So long as the EU keeps throwing us a few scraps, we can thrown them pieces of our democracy.

Who gives a **** what the EU has given us? Seriously. It's all well and good to preach about it - but don't ask us to vote based on the premise that we owe them something because they have given us money. Democracy goes way and beyond the cause of capitalism.

Dinter

Dinter wrote: »

A quota system could have been introduced for foreign vessels as easily by the Irish Government as it was by the EU.

Em, also you do realise fish are actually worth money? They can be sold as easily as any other commodity. It would take more policing though.

Anyway even though I don't think the benefits to our infrastructure would have accrued as easily as they did without our membership of the EU I don't think it's beneficial to ignore what we've paid over. Nothing happens in a vacuum and the EU is not and never has been a charity.

Theres no vat on Fish.What you would have ended up with would have been a few extra Irish super trawlers I think and plenty of sub minimum wage jobs[as we wouldnt have a min wage].
Secondly,besides the infrastructure [I still think equating the billions of EU funding and the ginormous market we got access to,with what we might have made from Fish is ridiculous] theres an awfull lot of legislation that we wouldnt have done if we were not in the E.U.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Right, let's vote yes for "money".

So long as the EU keeps throwing us a few scraps, we can thrown them pieces of our democracy.

Who gives a **** what the EU has given us? Seriously. It's all well and good to preach about it - but don't ask us to vote based on the premise that we owe them something because they have given us money. Democracy goes way and beyond the cause of capitalism.

Given that you are the Sinn Féin rep at WIT...Lol is that a freudian slip of behind the scenes Sinn Féin policy?

passive

Jesus1222 wrote: »

I was opposed to the threatening behaviour and language of politicians in trying to scare people into voting for this. I support a democratic EU, not an autocratic EU. I'm opposed to incremental steps towards militarisation (no matter how small those steps are or appear to be). And although it is not our right I believe the Irish vote was a reflection of not just Irish opinion but opinion across the EU.

so.... no parts of the treaty then ^_^.

Just had to make sure...

I'm going to stop charging headfirst into a brick wall now, and a large portion of you are just that, nothing but a brick wall. If you spend 30 seconds on the politics forum ye'll be torn to shreds with this insanity, and I encourage anyone who feels bothered by the absurdity of arguments like the above to read any of the discussions in the EU subforum involving Scofflaw, OscarBravo et al. I haven't the patience or rhetoric skills to deal with the sheer insanity of tinfoil-hat wearers like Rtdh and posters who oppose something while openly acknowledging a lack of anything to oppose in the thing itself....

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Im not over yet, if we vote YES give it a couple of years and we will be all branded like pigs. :pac:

Didn't we agree only last week that you didn't even read the Lisbon Treaty? :rolleyes:



I'm surprised you haven't mentioned that there are PCBs in pigs and PCB also stands for printed circuit board :eek:? You should work that into your act. Also the pig was the animal that took ultimate control of the farm and became most like the human oppressors in George Orwell's Animal Farm. :eek:

Really those are basic things you should have been picking up on RTDH. You're slipping.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that you are the Sinn Féin rep at WIT...Lol is that a freudian slip of behind the scenes Sinn Féin policy?

How is it a Freudian slip? It is my core personal belief. I don't believe in throwing away democracy for the sole reason of money. If you're trying to sell Lisbon 2 on the premise of "but they gave us this..", then you're going to royally fail. Regardless of the party that I support, I am fully entitled to voice my opinion on the treaty. Especially since I worked personally on the first campaign. Probably while you were on internet forums, lecturing people.. right?

dlofnep To be honest-most voters are capitalists to their very nature and selfish to boot.
They never have and I suggest never will buy into what you said there.
They are pragmatic.
Most voters will vote for what doesn't hurt their pocket too much.

Thats why ultimately the EU as a project will always win out here.People when faced with an ultimate choice of In or Not will choose In.

mountainyman

Del2005 wrote: »

If you consider how much fish the other EU countries have taken from our waters we haven't got that much money from the EU. But it does seem odd that we our going to the EU, has no one insurance to cover this? Also we aren't the only people to reject Lisbon, every country that had a public vote rejected it. It only passed in countries where the politions voted and they nearly all said they didn't think it would pass a public vote.

That's bollocks we have got much more from Europe than teh value of our fish!

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

Didn't we agree only last week that you didn't even read the Lisbon Treaty? :rolleyes:

But I read the book of Revelation about the mark of the beast, Guess what, the EU Parliament has been using the Beast as its Corporate logo since its inauguration right to this day.

http://www.greatpreachers.org/images/europe2.jpg

javaboy wrote: »

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned that there are PCBs in pigs and PCB also stands for printed circuit board :eek:? You should work that into your act. Also the pig was the animal that took ultimate control of the farm and became most like the human oppressors in George Orwell's Animal Farm. :eek:

You could be right. "Mark of the Beast Technology to Be Implemented in EU"

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/61830

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

dlofnep To be honest-most voters are capitalists to their very nature and selfish to boot.
They never have and I suggest never will buy into what you said there.
They are pragmatic.
Most voters will vote for what doesn't hurt their pocket too much.

Thats why ultimately the EU as a project will always win out here.People when faced with an ultimate choice of In or Not will choose In.

Of course people will take aboard financial concerns, but to say that everyone is willing to sign up to everything thrown at us, even at the cost of our democracy for a few quid is lunacy. And there is nothing pragmatic about throwing away your democracy because someone tells us that we OWE the EU.