Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

K-9

Ah, from here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0716/1224250761236.html

IFO wrote:

IFO chairman Ebbie Sheehan said that the stance had been taken after a unanimous vote at the organisation’s recent annual general meeting.




“The Irish fishing industry is the only sector that has paid for our membership of the EU, and we estimate that European vessels have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish out of our waters over the last 35 years of membership,” Mr Sheehan said on Tuesday.

So it isn't actually €200 Billion.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, from here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0716/1224250761236.html

“The Irish fishing industry is the only sector that has paid for our membership of the EU, and we estimate that European vessels have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish out of our waters over the last 35 years of membership,” Mr Sheehan said on Tuesday.

So it isn't actually €200 Billion.

Think about the phrasing there - "we estimate". Now, if the IFO had figures, they'd say that the figures showed it, and it wouldn't be such a nice round number either.

So, for everyone who believes the €200bn figure, here's a simple challenge. I've shown my figures - let's have yours. You can start exactly as I did, by phoning BIM, and following all the leads you're given, just as I did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

While Hickie is a celebrity, he is also a reasonably bright guy. Are his views to be discounted just because he was a very good rugby player?

The fact he admitted on The Right Hook (Newstalk) to not having read the treaty (when asked by GH in response to my text) is a more serious reason to discount it.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The fact he admitted on The Right Hook (Newstalk) to not having read the treaty (when asked by GH in response to my text) is a more serious reason to discount it.

That's bollocks. What's more, I am sure that you know it's bollocks.

Some of the heroes of the no side last time around claimed to have read the treaty and not understood it. That didn't dissuade them from campaigning against the treaty on the basis of specific points that they said were in it.

I have read the treaty, including chasing up references to other agreements so that I could make sense of particular clauses. It's mind-numbing stuff, and my mind was duly numbed. I can, however, say that it is comprehensible, because I could comprehend everything I read; but to construct the whole picture in my head it was more work than I cared to undertake. So now I am content to leave the details to competent specialists.

Spiritoftheseventies

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's bollocks. What's more, I am sure that you know it's bollocks.

Some of the heroes of the no side last time around claimed to have read the treaty and not understood it. That didn't dissuade them from campaigning against the treaty on the basis of specific points that they said were in it.

I have read the treaty, including chasing up references to other agreements so that I could make sense of particular clauses. It's mind-numbing stuff, and my mind was duly numbed. I can, however, say that it is comprehensible, because I could comprehend everything I read; but to construct the whole picture in my head it was more work than I cared to undertake. So now I am content to leave the details to competent specialists.

Not a reason to discount it but if this newly established Pro treatyite movement are going to put forward high profile celebrity/sportspersons to make their case, its not desirable to say they haven't read the treaty. Like i said before putting as much accurate information into the mainstream prior to vote is important. Soundbites like "If Ireland votes Yes, it can become a much stronger voice in Europe" is not going to sell a very complex document.

oscarBravo

worldrepublic wrote: »

I am not going to vote for a series of ammendments.

So you won't vote for an EU treaty unless it's a completely new treaty, written from scratch?

Did you vote for Nice? Maastricht? Amsterdam?

Spiritoftheseventies

K-9 wrote: »

If not, maybe it's because they want to work them?

Do you have much experience of the fishing industry and its practices?

Can you enlighten us. Assume you are near the fishing area. How are things going for our fishermen up there?

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Can you enlighten us. Assume you are near the fishing area. How are things going for our fishermen up there?

By the way, what impact does Lisbon have on the CFP?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

Can you enlighten us. Assume you are near the fishing area. How are things going for our fishermen up there?

Still crying away. Doesn't bother the big fish (:P) though as they overfishing the African coast.

coffism

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The fact he admitted on The Right Hook (Newstalk) to not having read the treaty (when asked by GH in response to my text) is a more serious reason to discount it.

bull****

FutureTaoiseach

coffism wrote: »

bull****

What happened was that Denis Hickey was on The Right Hook. I texted in a msg asking had he read the Treaty. Hook then put it to Hickey who replied that he hadn't. This was a while back. If you don't believe me, download a podcast from their website.

BlitzKrieg

date?

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

date?

It was the last time Denis Hickey was on the Right Hook to discuss his support for Lisbon (and to my knowledge the last time he was on the show at all). I don't know what date that was. I didn't have reason to write it down at the time. However, I am known as "Joe in Wexford" when I text in. You can confirm what I am saying about Hickey's admission by finding someone who heard that episode.

BlitzKrieg

problem is the newstalk archive for the right hook seems to only go back as far as may 1st. and even then its divided up as per the show and only the thursday night interview names the guest, so unless I can get something a bit more specific, then it would be pretty hard to confirm or not.

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

problem is the newstalk archive for the right hook seems to only go back as far as may 1st. and even then its divided up as per the show and only the thursday night interview names the guest, so unless I can get something a bit more specific, then it would be pretty hard to confirm or not.

I'm pretty sure it was June 22nd because I've just found a blog post I made mentioning it happening "this evening" on that date.

BlitzKrieg

heh

I found the same blog post.

Sadly it seems newstalk only uploaded the technology segment from june 22nd.

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

heh

I found the same blog post.

Sadly it seems newstalk only uploaded the technology segment from june 22nd.

Didn't know that.

BlitzKrieg

Passed an email onto their techie asking for a quick send of a copy from their wavecart if possible.

Spiritoftheseventies

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It was the last time Denis Hickey was on the Right Hook to discuss his support for Lisbon (and to my knowledge the last time he was on the show at all). I don't know what date that was. I didn't have reason to write it down at the time. However, I am known as "Joe in Wexford" when I text in. You can confirm what I am saying about Hickey's admission by finding someone who heard that episode.

sorry just to confirm its Denis Hickie. Must have been fairly recently because he was on Ray D'Arcy last week but only mentioned the Treaty at the end. D'Arcy didnt really challenge him on treaty as such, was pretty much Hickie saying that a lot of people voted no due to concerns over abortion, Taxation and Nuetrality and now that these worries had been pretty much allayed. But overall nothing else was said.

Spiritoftheseventies

Just to re-open the debate which seems to have stalled a bit may i point you to an article that appeared in times on Tuesday. I have highlighted parts of text which i think need to be looked at. I'm particularly irked by this Ireland are freeriding by leaving itself undefended and expecting other countries too defend us. History shows that up until very recently this was not the case. And our record in Peace keeping is excellent.
As with the argument to succumbing to the vested interest of farmers wasn't this as was argued on this thread in return for surrendering some of our fish quotas.
And finally to whether our foreign ministers our equipped in the dealing with foreign relations. I think our negotiating skills during the Peace process suggests otherwise and we can bring plenty of expertise here.

OPINION: Ireland’s position in the EU is in grave danger – a position that owes much to the neglect of complacent politicians, writes DAN O'BRIEN

IN ARTICLES in recent weeks, Garret FitzGerald concluded that Ireland’s conduct of its foreign policy has been in stark contrast to its poor record of economic management. This conclusion is wrong. Just as in economic affairs, the foreign policy failings that were submerged under the high tide of prosperity are now re-emerging into view.

Most pertinent is Europe. Should the forthcoming referendum sink the Lisbon Treaty once and for all, Ireland will place itself in the path of a historical dynamic of enormous momentum. There should be little doubt about what will happen if that irresistible force meets the fragile object that is Irish rejectionism. That the country is in such a perilous position owes much to the neglect and complacency of the political class.

There were abundant signs before the first Nice Treaty referendum in 2001 that the vote could be lost. Those risks were ignored and Nice I was defeated. If the political class could claim to have been blindsided in 2001, no such claim can be made of the Lisbon Treaty campaign in 2008. The failure yet again to step up to the plate during the campaign has resulted in one of the smallest member states becoming the largest obstacle to the implementation of reforms agreed by 27 governments. This is a dangerous position for a small and powerless country to be in.

But it is not only in leading and informing public opinion on Europe that politicians have been found wanting. In December 2003, on the eve of Ireland taking over the rotating presidency of the EU, then taoiseach Bertie Ahern conceded that Ireland was perceived as having drifted to the periphery of Europe.

That the man at the country’s helm for the previous six years could observe such drift, in the manner of a casual bystander, says much about the importance the political class attaches to foreign matters and the unwillingness and inability to pursue the country’s vital interests.

European engagement is a core national interest for Ireland; guaranteeing security is an eternal interest for all states. And here Ireland’s record is unique. When Nato was established in the aftermath of the second World War, Ireland remained neutral.

But unlike those other European countries who voluntarily chose that stance – Sweden and Switzerland – Ireland made no effort to guarantee its neutrality. Where the Swedes and the Swiss committed resources to their militaries, Ireland left itself undefended because it knew that its allies would protect it.

This is called free riding. No Irish person should be proud of it. But rather than being clear about this, self-deception took hold.

Non-participation in the Atlantic alliance came to be portrayed as noble aloofness from the conduct of the cold war. Implicit, if not explicit, in this position was that alliances among states for the purpose of enhancing security were in some way morally suspect.
Sustained self-deception more often than not has serious consequences. It certainly has for Ireland. As the EU logically expands its role in the provision of security, the decades-long failure of the political class to educate, persuade and lead comes home to roost. Fantasies abound of the EU morphing into a war machine and of Irish youth being press-ganged into some Euro-imperial army.

Ireland ties itself in knots with triple locks, protocols and opt-outs to appease the peddlers of these fantasies. The result is growing marginalisation from this increasingly important dimension of the EU.

The failure to meet security challenges extends to energy. Despite the intensification of global competition for resources and the need to find new sources of energy (Britain, Ireland’s main source of supply, is rapidly running out of North Sea oil and gas), far too little is being done. One of the few real options, nuclear, has been shied away from by successive governments since the 1970s, and in 2007 an energy White Paper explicitly ruled it out. Nor have renewable sources of energy been prioritised. In the energy mix, they account for just 3 per cent of the total – one-third of the EU average. If there is ever a crunch in the world’s supply of energy, the lights will quickly go out in Ireland.

Economic security has suffered even greater neglect. Multilateralism is the organising principle that every small country wishes to see operate in world affairs because it internationalises the rule of law. The weak benefit most from enforceable rules because they provide protection from the arbitrary actions of the strong. The World Trade Organisation is the most effective global multilateral construct that has ever existed.

The interests of any small, politically powerless country that is highly dependent on foreign trade dictate that it support ardently that organisation. Ireland does the opposite; consistently working against its own interests. Each time an effort is made to advance the Doha round of trade talks, Ireland is the most vocal opponent among the EU 27.

This position is seen abroad, by those who care to look, for what it is – the granting to a small vested interest (in this case farmers) of the power to determine policy to the detriment of the wider economy.

If trade policy was long ago surrendered to the IFA, aid policy has been victim of domestic mismanagement. After the 2002 election, when excessive pre-poll spending necessitated post-election cutbacks, the commitment the then taoiseach had given the UN, of reaching that organisation’s aid target of 0.7 per cent of national income, was postponed. The current chronic fiscal crisis means it will not be met for at least a decade. This is bad not only for those who benefit from Irish aid, but for the country’s reputation as a reliable partner on development issues.

What accounts for these failings? One must look first to the calibre of the country’s politicians in general, and foreign ministers in particular. The current Iveagh House incumbent is a school teacher. His four immediate predecessors were, respectively, a solicitor, a solicitor, a barrister and Ray Burke. None had any background in international relations or diplomacy. None had ever lived, worked or studied abroad. None had ever worked for a foreign company in Ireland. No other developed country entrusts its foreign relations to unqualified amateurs with no experience of the world.In recent decades the international political and economic environment has been benign for Ireland. The years to come will be far more challenging. The most parochial and least cosmopolitan political class in western Europe has not been up to the task of conducting a strategically coherent foreign policy in the good times. One must fear for how it will fare in the stormier times ahead.

Scofflaw

guaranteeing security is an eternal interest for all states. And here Ireland’s record is unique. When Nato was established in the aftermath of the second World War, Ireland remained neutral.

But unlike those other European countries who voluntarily chose that stance – Sweden and Switzerland – Ireland made no effort to guarantee its neutrality. Where the Swedes and the Swiss committed resources to their militaries, Ireland left itself undefended because it knew that its allies would protect it.

This is called free riding. No Irish person should be proud of it. But rather than being clear about this, self-deception took hold.

Non-participation in the Atlantic alliance came to be portrayed as noble aloofness from the conduct of the cold war. Implicit, if not explicit, in this position was that alliances among states for the purpose of enhancing security were in some way morally suspect.

I would agree whole-heartedly with that view. I accept your point that we also at various times actively embraced a position of neutrality on the world stage, and used it to good effect in honest brokering and highlighting the issues of other post-colonial nations.

However, at the same time, we never have undertaken what is usually regarded as a minimum necessary defensive capability that goes with neutrality. Other neutral countries are sufficiently well-armed either to make aggression costly for an attacker, or at least to do so to the best of the various countries' abilities. We are, as far as I know, unique in being both neutral and unarmed.

At the same time, we haven't been fully neutral. We were more clearly on the Allied than the Axis side in WW2, and more clearly on the Western side than the Soviet side in the Cold War. On both those occasions we relied on our strategic value to the side we favoured as well as our technical neutrality to protect us. It meant keeping our commitment to the favoured side within certain limits, but that, I suspect, suited us as well.

For at least the last decade or more, we have made almost no active use of our neutrality, which renders our position almost entirely parasitic. The first charge of having our cake and eating it I would regard as proven.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Yes but i think it proves why assurances on Neutrality have been given what others think about our Neutrality is entirely different.

Scofflaw

Economic security has suffered even greater neglect. Multilateralism is the organising principle that every small country wishes to see operate in world affairs because it internationalises the rule of law. The weak benefit most from enforceable rules because they provide protection from the arbitrary actions of the strong. The World Trade Organisation is the most effective global multilateral construct that has ever existed.

The interests of any small, politically powerless country that is highly dependent on foreign trade dictate that it support ardently that organisation. Ireland does the opposite; consistently working against its own interests. Each time an effort is made to advance the Doha round of trade talks, Ireland is the most vocal opponent among the EU 27.

This position is seen abroad, by those who care to look, for what it is – the granting to a small vested interest (in this case farmers) of the power to determine policy to the detriment of the wider economy.

I'd call this true as well. That was exactly why the government vetoes WTO deals - on behalf of the farmers. I don't know of any other group that gets such treatment.

By the way, the WTO has nothing to do with the EU and our fishing rights, although giving the other EU countries fishing rights in Irish waters was indeed regarded as an entirely acceptable change for CAP going to the farmers. To be fair to the people who made that decision, the Irish fishing industry was negligible at the time, and even if it took all the fish from Irish waters that's currently taken by other member states, it would still be worth much less than CAP - about €250m compared to €1.5bn in 2004, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes but i think it proves why assurances on Neutrality have been given what others think about our Neutrality is entirely different.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be neutral, just that our particular version of it has no justification except an active use of that neutrality abroad by both government and people. I can also see the value in the assurances on neutrality - they may not be required in respect of the Treaty, because what was claimed to damage Irish neutrality isn't in there in the first place, but the negotiation of them serves as a reminder to the rest of the world (insofar as they care) that the Irish people are committed to Irish neutrality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be neutral, just that our particular version of it has no justification except an active use of that neutrality abroad by both government and people. I can also see the value in the assurances on neutrality - they may not be required in respect of the Treaty, because what was claimed to damage Irish neutrality isn't in there in the first place, but the negotiation of them serves as a reminder to the rest of the world (insofar as they care) that the Irish people are committed to Irish neutrality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes Irish Neutrality may be seen as a bit ambigious by some and none more so during Rendition flights to Shannon during which I think we were compromised.
Are we expecting EU countries to come to our aid in the event of an invasion of some sort. The bigger question have we the facilities to defend ourselves
What contingency plans have been put in place. Has it been addressed by government?

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes Irish Neutrality may be seen as a bit ambigious by some and none more so during Rendition flights to Shannon during which I think we were compromised.
Are we expecting EU countries to come to our aid in the event of an invasion of some sort. The bigger question have we the facilities to defend ourselves
What contingency plans have been put in place. Has it been addressed by government?

The general assumption appears to be that the other EU countries would indeed come to our aid. It would also be more or less impossible to invade Ireland without dragging the US and the UK into the conflict. Short of a general world war, it's more or less inconceivable that anyone should invade us specifically - and in that sense one could reasonably say that our defence forces are adequate in the light of the perceived risk.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bijapos

Who exactly are we supposed to defend ourselves against? Are we expecting an invasion from someone in the near future?

ei.sdraob

bijapos wrote: »

Who exactly are we supposed to defend ourselves against? Are we expecting an invasion from someone in the near future?

Ireland is and will remain neutral with or without Lisbon

if a set of European countries decide to go on a military adventure ala Iraq it has nothing to do with us, and neither can we tell them what to do or not to do

Spiritoftheseventies

bijapos wrote: »

Who exactly are we supposed to defend ourselves against? Are we expecting an invasion from someone in the near future?

Read the above opinion piece for clarification.

worldrepublic

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes Irish Neutrality may be seen as a bit ambigious by some and none more so during Rendition flights to Shannon during which I think we were compromised.
Are we expecting EU countries to come to our aid in the event of an invasion of some sort. The bigger question have we the facilities to defend ourselves
What contingency plans have been put in place. Has it been addressed by government?

Who would invade us? In a wwiii scenario I guess there could be some kind of "invasion", but other than that an invasion force would essentially have to circumvent European waters/airspace etc. so our strategic position protects us (location, location, location....)

On the other hand, our location (and this concern is a recurring theme is Irish history) especially as a back-door to Britain, makes us a target. In the present context this might mean the various Islamic terrorist networks moving in. Form the perspective of the "war on terror" then, preventive or control measures could entail international intelligence agencies designating Ireland as a hotspot of some kind. This could mean being flexible regarding surveillance, rendition, etc. Might we have some kind of well funded civilian force (as defined by Obama) that could report on the activities and ideological leanings of the Irish population? Tracking technologies would be key.
This is not farfetched -at all. Consider that during the 1990's, the entire border between NI and the South entailed the use of the very best in surveillance technologies. And, obviously, the War on Terror is happening on a scale that makes the NI "Troubles" look like a drop in the ocean.

For Ireland to move forward, it is best to put power in the hands of a European collective, and start to contribute at levels of, variously, peace-keeping, intelligence, surveillance and civilian forces. There have been reports that Al qaeda is already in Ireland. And the War on Terror shows no signs of abbating. We can join the international Western community to properly cooperate with the ongoing collective effort to bring democracy to the world.