Pro Lisbon Treaty arguments

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

What Yes campaign?????

Generation Yes have been keeping to the facts alone asfaik.

Please provide details of Yes campaigns that are scaremongering.

I am someone who reads the papers every day, watches the news and listens to news radio every day. I am referring to the government ministers, the opposition TDs, the 'celebrities' the ex taoiseach and retired elders who have been paraded in front of us to plead with us to accept the treaty.

I haven't seen any interviews or read any articles in the media where the yes side refer to any specific articles in the treaty except when they're countering specific points put forward by the no campaigners.

IF you can find some, I'd be interested in seeing links so I can read them or listen to them myself.

Iwasfrozen

1) You shouldn't base you decision on what the Government says.
2) We don't control what issues IBEC focus on.
3) It's not like Choir and Sinn Finé are champions of truth.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1) You shouldn't base you decision on what the Government says.
2) We don't control what issues IBEC focus on.
3) It's not like Choir and Sinn Finé are champions of truth.

agreed on all 3

turgon

I dont think theres any formal Yes campaign as yet. At the moment its just various people spouting, its not even together.

Iwasfrozen

Then what is your general arguement for this thread?

turgon

His original argument was that there were no good reasons to vote Yes to Lisbon, this thread had nothing to do with the Yes campaign.

Akrasia wrote: »

Pro Lisbon Treaty arguments
1. We have to remain 'at the heart of europe'
Translation, we must appease the germans.

That appears to be the only argument.
Everything else focuses on the imagined negative consequences should we not appease the germans.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Akrasia wrote: »

we must appease the germans.

I think that line has vile connotations, and I think they are there on purpose.

Dinner

Akrasia wrote: »

I asked for arguments, and I get 5 or 6 different people linking to and pm'ing the exact same list of 10 reasons to vote for lisbon.

You asked for arguments, you then ignored the first link.
The link was provided again, this time the big friendly letters seemed to catch your attention, but Dob74 didn't seem to cop it, so they were posted again. If you and Dob spotted them first time round you wouldn't have people pm'ing it to you.

Slightly more on topic. You won't find anyone here defending the Yes camp for the previous referendum. They did an awful job, truly awful. They were given a complex treaty and rather than explaining it, they boiled it down to little slogans that fitted on posters based losely on the idea that Europe has been good to us. Which it has, but that has nothing to do with the treaty.

The no camp on the other hand made stuff up, claiming that things were in the treaty when they were not, knowing full well that a large number of people will make up their minds based on the slogans on posters. All they had to do was print them. The hysteria took care of the rest.

For the next referendum, the campaign hasn't really started yet, so you should lay of condeming this campaign as a failure until they do **** up. I fear that you won't be short on opportunities.

brianthebard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1) You shouldn't base you decision on what the Government says.

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

The government is not necessarily the government...which is to say that while I, for example, couldn't care less what FF say about the Treaty (except insofar as they affect the campaign), I do care what the DFA have to say. The former are politicians, the latter experts in international treaties. Both of them, alas, can be indiscriminately described as "the government".

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

The government is not necessarily the government...which is to say that while I, for example, couldn't care less what FF say about the Treaty (except insofar as they affect the campaign), I do care what the DFA have to say. The former are politicians, the latter experts in international treaties. Both of them, alas, can be indiscriminately described as "the government".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't see the point in the distinction.

P. Breathnach

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't see the point in the distinction.

It's clearly enough spelled out by Scofflaw. In one mode of thinking about it, the government comprises politicians; in another mode, it comprises the civil service.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't see the point in the distinction.

Do you really not? Why not? It's a very basic distinction: our civil service isn't simply an arm of the governing party, and their tenure and promotion is internally organised and not subject to political control. As far as it's possible to do so, they are apolitical, because they have to work with whatever government is elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Dob74 wrote: »

So what part of the treaty do you believe in the most. Or are you just following the your polictal masters?
I didn't see one reason pointedout as a reason to vote yes , just the usual anti No rubbish.
If you are a neo-liberal you probably agree with most of the treaty.
But since the majority of people arent Neo-Liberals, I cant see it being passed on the merits of the treaty.
Just the weight of power of the Yes can push it over.

While this is neither here nor there the main opponent of the treaty the last time a neo liberal? I don't see the EU as overtly liberal or Socalist is pretty well balanced to my eye.

I certainly don't need the government to make up my mind for me on this treaty, for one thing I would be waiting a long long time for information and there is not much they have to say that intrests me currently. I did my bit at the last GE, it is a pity more of us did not follow suit, but I refuse to use an unrelated issue of a european treaty as an excuse to make a futile point.

marco_polo

Akrasia wrote: »

I am someone who reads the papers every day, watches the news and listens to news radio every day. I am referring to the government ministers, the opposition TDs, the 'celebrities' the ex taoiseach and retired elders who have been paraded in front of us to plead with us to accept the treaty.

I haven't seen any interviews or read any articles in the media where the yes side refer to any specific articles in the treaty except when they're countering specific points put forward by the no campaigners.

IF you can find some, I'd be interested in seeing links so I can read them or listen to them myself.

Good points, the offical campaign was been pretty much hopeless the last time around, although I don't think it has started in earnest yet I am not overly hopefull that things will be much different this time around.

That is not quite the same as 'There are no good reasons to vote yes'. Why didn't you use this as the OP.

karlog

Can someone give me a brief explanation on what will happen if we join and if we dont?

I dont know anything about the lisbon treaty:(

turgon

karlog wrote: »

Can someone give me a brief explanation on what will happen if we join and if we dont?

Its not about joining anything as such, its about reforming the EU. If Lisbon is passed the EU will change in certain ways. So its mostly boring arguments that wont strike your interest.

One of the pro-Lisbon posters, sink, came up with his excellent and oft-quoted list of 10 Reasons to Vote Yes. That was for Lisbon 1, because of the guarantees Lisbon 2 wont include point number 2 in sinks post.

If we say No to Lisbon the EU stays the way it is now. Some negatives to this include making it harder for more countries (like Iceland) to join.

There is an ongoing debate about the "message" saying No to Lisbon will send to the EU and to corporations such as Intel, ie that we arent pro-EU. While that argument may have some merit I believe there are enough reasons in sinks post alone to vote Yes.

When it comes to voting just examine what your vote can do. For example some people are annoyed we have a second referendum. But at the end of the day voting No will not change that. I would say to people, above all else use your vote responsibly! At the end of the day its your vote, and vote the way you want.



Edit: if youve problems understanding sinks post the Wikipedia entry for 'EU' would be a good place to start learning about how the EU works.

Mario007

karlog wrote: »

Can someone give me a brief explanation on what will happen if we join and if we dont?

I dont know anything about the lisbon treaty:(

i'm sure there will be people here that can explain it better than me, but let me try:

if we vote no it basically means the eu you know now stays in place, the only change will be that there might be decrease in the number of the eu commissioners. eu will take around 3-5 years to come up with yet another treaty and we'll be voting again.
to ireland it will cause, apparently, great dismay. the head of the treasury has said yesterday on six one that after the last no the moneylenders were very upset with ireland(mainly because those moneylenders were all big european nations) and it basically damaged our reputation and money borrowing ability. we can assume this to happen yet again. also there is a talk of changing lisbon so it is only applied to the 26 nations and not ireland which would mean that ireland would really be put on the periphery of the eu.

now the yes vote basically gets lisbon working(the czechs and polish president has said they'd ratify the treaty if ireland votes yes). this means the eu will be fundamental changed. the ten reason for voting yes(and also the ten big changes) have been outlined earlier in this thread. i would also point out that the lisbon treaty gives more power to the national parliaments which is balanced off with lisbon taking away national sovereignty in some fields. also the number of the commissioners stays the same and the eu can follow its policy of expansion which is being put on hold now under nice, because the politicians think that nice's criteria for expansion are outdated.

thats about all i can think of right now

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you really not? Why not? It's a very basic distinction: our civil service isn't simply an arm of the governing party, and their tenure and promotion is internally organised and not subject to political control. As far as it's possible to do so, they are apolitical, because they have to work with whatever government is elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx

You were referring to the dept of foreign affairs, correct? Who's on the home page there? Considering all parties in the Dail bar Sinn Fein support Lisbon the party distinction means nothing on this particular issue. Furthermore, the civil service still answers to the Government, does it not?

K-9

Akrasia wrote: »

wow, this is pretty surreal. It's like I have a gaggle of little lisbon pixies all reciting the same little rhyme in acapella

Jaysus, you should try politics.ie, but I see your point.

In fairness, there are only so many good reasons for voting yes, as there are only so many good reasons to vote No.

Akrasia wrote: »

I asked for arguments, and I get 5 or 6 different people linking to and pm'ing the exact same list of 10 reasons to vote for lisbon. It's amazing how the party has managed to keep everyone so 'on message'

There isn't really anything in there you can say is good for Ireland. For the EU, Yes and therefor indirectly Ireland.

I like the common energy policy and common foreign policy (with the 27 countries agreement).

I liked less Commissioners but sure that ones gone!

Don't particularly like the defence parts, more for selfish political reasons, but 3/4 countries who are neutral can't hold back the rest. Neutrality is respected for Ireland and the other 2/3 countries.

brianthebard wrote: »

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

Our advisors and officials are highly thought of and respected in the EU. The Govt. tends to actually listen to them more on EU issues than national ones!

brianthebard

K-9 wrote: »

Our advisors and officials are highly thought of and respected in the EU. The Govt. tends to actually listen to them more on EU issues than national ones!

So again, why is the separation needed? It appears as if some Yes voters want to have their cake and eat it, that is distance themselves from FF while still supporting the treaty. That's unnecessary, we already know all the main parties support it. Either the government follows the civil servants as you say or the civil servants follow the government, either way the policy is the same.

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

So again, why is the separation needed? It appears as if some Yes voters want to have their cake and eat it, that is distance themselves from FF while still supporting the treaty. That's unnecessary, we already know all the main parties support it. Either the government follows the civil servants as you say or the civil servants follow the government, either way the policy is the same.

But FG/Labour and Greens support it?

This isn't a FF issue.

How many times do you get cross party support in a Dail, barring SF?

brianthebard

K-9 wrote: »

But FG/Labour and Greens support it?

This isn't a FF issue.

How many times do you get cross party support in a Dail, barring SF?

Yes exactly, differentiating between 'the government' and 'the opposition' is pointless in this case.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes exactly, differentiating between 'the government' and 'the opposition' is pointless in this case.

It's not a case of differentiating between the government and the opposition, both of whom are political, but of differentiating between the political government and its professional servants.

I wouldn't listen to the Minister for Agriculture if I wanted to know where to plant trees, but I would have no difficulty listening to the advice of a professional forester from the Department the Minister runs. Similarly, I have no problem listening to the DFA, no matter who their Minister might be, because the Irish civil service, like all the civil services that inherit the British constitutional tradition, are politically neutral. If the DFA says X is an implication of the Treaty, then in all likelihood it is.

I appreciate that may not be a distinction you bother to draw, but it's a constitutionally important one, and a real one. The civil service is not simply an extension of the political government of the day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not a case of differentiating between the government and the opposition, both of whom are political, but of differentiating between the political government and its professional servants.

I wouldn't listen to the Minister for Agriculture if I wanted to know where to plant trees, but I would have no difficulty listening to the advice of a professional forester from the Department the Minister runs. Similarly, I have no problem listening to the DFA, no matter who their Minister might be, because the Irish civil service, like all the civil services that inherit the British constitutional tradition, are politically neutral. If the DFA says X is an implication of the Treaty, then in all likelihood it is.

I appreciate that may not be a distinction you bother to draw, but it's a constitutionally important one, and a real one. The civil service is not simply an extension of the political government of the day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So although the minister in question may be briefed, up to date, and positively knowledgeable about a field because of a dept's civil service, you'd still prefer to ignore them because they were elected? I'm really not sure what your point is here. The civil service are apolitical, yes, I know. So what? They still work for the government, not in the sense that the govt have them in their pocket, but that they are mutually beneficial for one another. Ignoring one at the expense of the other, especially the one which is democratically elected vs the one which is not-I really don't understand the point in that.

marco_polo

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes exactly, differentiating between 'the government' and 'the opposition' is pointless in this case.

Yes but the numbers voting No just to stick it to the Opposition will be exactly zero. Where as it is indisputable that some will be doing just that to the Government, so it is perfectly sensible of others in the Yes campaign to deflect attention away from FF.

I don't want to overstate the pioint as I have no idea what kind of numbers may be thinking this way, however even if it is a very small percentage, in such a tight vote every protest vote will be important.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not a case of differentiating between the government and the opposition, both of whom are political, but of differentiating between the political government and its professional servants.

I wouldn't listen to the Minister for Agriculture if I wanted to know where to plant trees, but I would have no difficulty listening to the advice of a professional forester from the Department the Minister runs. Similarly, I have no problem listening to the DFA, no matter who their Minister might be, because the Irish civil service, like all the civil services that inherit the British constitutional tradition, are politically neutral. If the DFA says X is an implication of the Treaty, then in all likelihood it is.

I appreciate that may not be a distinction you bother to draw, but it's a constitutionally important one, and a real one. The civil service is not simply an extension of the political government of the day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly.

brianthebard wrote: »

So although the minister in question may be briefed, up to date, and positively knowledgeable about a field because of a dept's civil service, you'd still prefer to ignore them because they were elected? I'm really not sure what your point is here.

Ah. wait a second here. What exactly is your point? Your last 2/3 posts seem contradictory to me.

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly.



Ah. wait a second here. What exactly is your point? Your last 2/3 posts seem contradictory to me.

It all stems from this post. Perhaps I am cynical but it looks suspiciously like fishing for someone to say that everyone should base their decision on the Governments message and vote yes.

brianthebard wrote: »

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

K-9

I''m confused now. Sack the civil servants as well as FF?

Look, is every single thing FF do automatically BAD?

I think somebody is seeking offense on this matter.

brianthebard wrote:

This seems like a very contradictory statement, on the one hand posters emphasis the part the Irish Government had in the making of the treaty, the time and money that went into it, etc, and on the other you say that we shouldn't listen to the Government? If people shouldn't base their decisions on the government's message, then what official canvassing body (ie not someone on boards, as previously pointed out that's not what this thread is about) should we base our decisions on?

That's a very lazy point. Expected better.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

So although the minister in question may be briefed, up to date, and positively knowledgeable about a field because of a dept's civil service, you'd still prefer to ignore them because they were elected? I'm really not sure what your point is here. The civil service are apolitical, yes, I know. So what? They still work for the government, not in the sense that the govt have them in their pocket, but that they are mutually beneficial for one another. Ignoring one at the expense of the other, especially the one which is democratically elected vs the one which is not-I really don't understand the point in that.

The answer is that, yes, I'd probably ignore the Minister, except to the extent that I felt he was reflecting the views of his Department. Partly through having been in the environmental field, I know that a Minister (Dick Roche, for example) may choose to take or ignore the advice of his Departmental experts, so that the view of the Department may be that it is entirely wrong to ignore, say, the Habitats Directive, or the Nitrates Directive. The Minister, however, is entitled to set aside that view in favour of something that will get him or his party re-elected - and, as we know, they do so. Since the elected representative has other agendas than simply the science (or other facts), I tend to ignore them except as indicators of the direction of the political will and the public mood.

cordially,
Scofflaw