UCD Students and The Lisbon Treaty

Pride Fighter

^^^
Thats a good synopsis of some of the positive points of the treaty. Something which upsets me about QMV is that countries like Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary have votes on the allocation of our fishing rights. I know Germany have a small fishing fleet but the other nations are landlocked. Spain and France bribe them with incentives so they can rape our natural resources. With QMV nations with bigger populations can bully smaller nations unless the smaller nations amount to 10 countries or 35% of the vote.

You also failed to mention the provisions for increased militarisation and the attack on workers rights included in the treaty. Although you did mention the new position of EU foreign affairs minister as something you oppose.

passive

Pride Fighter wrote: »

You also failed to mention the provisions for increased militarisation and the attack on workers rights included in the treaty.

Run me by the attack on workers' rights contained in the treaty? The impression I got, even from people like Joe Higgins, was that it didn't go *far enough* to protect workers' rights... I wasn't aware there was anything attacking workers in the treaty, and I'm pretty sure the court cases etc that are ongoing are ongoing already and won't be affected by Lisbon?

Stabshauptmann

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Something which upsets me about QMV is that countries like Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary have votes on the allocation of our fishing rights.

The fisheries policies are already covered by QMV.
For a list of competencies that are moving to QMV see:
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/whitepaper/annexb.asp

The change under lisbon is the weighting of the QMV, and the e. parliament has become co legislator with the Council of Europe.

The EU may not have been good for Irish Fishing, but Lisbon doesnt introduce any new threats.

And tbh, as far as Im concerned, we got a very good price for our fish.
Generous CAP funding, structural funding, access to markets; not to mention all the consumer protection legislation. We finally broke our dependence on the UK and raised our standard of living to that of a 1st world country at the expense of an industry that effects how many people?

If the entire primary sector of the economy only employs 8% of the work force, I doubt fishing accounts for even 2%

With QMV nations with bigger populations can bully smaller nations unless the smaller nations amount to 10 countries or 35% of the vote.

I think you've got it assways. Lisbon tries to prevents bigger countries bullying smaller ones by introducing the double lock whereby in addition to have >35% of the population bloc a vote, that 35% must be spread over >4 countries; thus preventing 3 big countries forming a veto pact.


Current system:
Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)

Under Lisbon:
* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met

* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

I prefer the Lisbon system

You also failed to mention the provisions for increased militarisation

No I didnt, I just called it what it is rather than scaremongering.
There is an opt in for greater military coordination on peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN.
There is no army of conscripts going door to door aborting babies...

and the attack on workers rights included in the treaty.

What attacks would be? I think the charter of fundamental rights is a great thing! Dont tell me you believe that Choir 1.84 min wage poster? Thats an out and out lie.

Pride Fighter

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

What attacks would be? I think the charter of fundamental rights is a great thing! Dont tell me you believe that Choir 1.84 min wage poster? Thats an out and out lie.

Coir are a bunch of lunatics. They are not representative of the no side. I am sure many yes rationalists will reject the lies peddled by FF and FG linking a yes vote to economic recovery.

The charter of fundamental rights is a bunch of crumbs the EU have thrown workers. However they are superseded by the European Court of Justice, cases such as Laval, Viking and Luxembourg are real attacks on workers rights and the charter cannot overturn those.

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Coir are a bunch of lunatics. They are not representative of the no side. I am sure many yes rationalists will reject the lies peddled by FF and FG linking a yes vote to economic recovery.

To be fair, they're not lies. Granted, passing Lisbon won't magically bring economic recovery, and rejecting it won't inevitably consign the Irish economy to the dustbin of history. But in business, perception counts for an awful lot, and if businesses perceive us to be distancing ourselves from the EU, regardless of whether we actually are or not, they may decide to base themselves in a country they perceive to have closer ties to what is a large market for them.

There's a lot of 'maybes' in there, and I'd certainly prefer if both sides actually debated the treaty directly, but I certainly wouldn't call that argument a lie.

I've had a rather mad idea. Given the publicity generated by Brian Cowen on the Late Late Show, would it be possible to have a panel debate the treaty some Friday? Most people who watch Prime Time etc. probably have their minds made up already, but this would hit a large audience comprising many people who have little or no interest in politics. Ok, it probably wouldn't reach many students, but it would reach a large section of the general population. Just a thought.

Time Magazine

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The charter of fundamental rights is a bunch of crumbs the EU have thrown workers. However they are superseded by the European Court of Justice, cases such as Laval, Viking and Luxembourg are real attacks on workers rights and the charter cannot overturn those.

Let's assume for a minute that they are indeed attacks on workers' rights, even though that warrants an entire discussion in itself.

The Charter does not supersede the ECJ's previous judgements. Agreed. Neither does Nice. The Charter and previous ECJ judgements are not connected. Let me repeat that: the two are not connected. So are you suggesting we vote No because of something not in the Treaty?

Please explain to me how that's better than voting No to the Good Friday Agreement because it doesn't secure a reasonable basis for the trade of textiles between India and China?

Tom65

The Economist wrote: »

Let's assume for a minute that they are indeed attacks on workers' rights, even though that warrants an entire discussion in itself.

The Charter does not supersede the ECJ's previous judgements. Agreed. Neither does Nice. The Charter and previous ECJ judgements are not connected. Let me repeat that: the two are not connected. So are you suggesting we vote No because of something not in the Treaty?

Please explain to me how that's better than voting No to the Good Friday Agreement because it doesn't secure a reasonable basis for the trade of textiles between India and China?

+1
This is what I've always thought about the "worker's rights" argument, more or less. It's the not the point of the Lisbon Treaty to secure workers' rights. It's a treaty aiming at redefining how the EU is run. There are a lot of things it doesn't talk about.
Every EU treaty since Ireland joined has advanced workers' rights. I know Unite are advocating a no vote, but SIPTU, the INO, and the Charter Group are all supporting the Treaty.

Ajfunky

Cheers stabs, that was perfect! really cleared up a few things!

I do still have an ickle bit of an issue with the military prospects. Even if we are considered neutral and not involved by the EU, isnt the fact that we support the EU enough to warrant attack? (its farfetch'd, but still apt i think.) i.e we're the fighters wife, hes fighting, but his enemies would as soon go after us.

And on the note, IF something was to break out and the eu went to war with someone, and we were "losing", would we not be coaxed into fighting, or shunned for cowardess?

Again quite farfetch'd but my mind thinks weird

Anonymous1987

I will be voting yes but I do have a major problem as to how these treaties are so inaccessible. Is it really necessary to have a 269 page document? surely a simpler text would be more appealing or is it just a reflection of 27 members states needing to be pleased with all the provisions?

As for foreign policy, it does seem to direct the EU towards a common defense policy however it requires all members to agree unanimously before it is moved forward so really a common foreign policy is not on the agenda for Lisbon rather its shelved for another time.

Also, I agree with above that Lisbon does not deal with workers rights and unless you can prove otherwise its an anti-EU argument not an anti-Lisbon one.

Jev/N

Ajfunky wrote: »

I do still have an ickle bit of an issue with the military prospects. Even if we are considered neutral and not involved by the EU, isnt the fact that we support the EU enough to warrant attack? (its farfetch'd, but still apt i think.) i.e we're the fighters wife, hes fighting, but his enemies would as soon go after us.

And on the note, IF something was to break out and the eu went to war with someone, and we were "losing", would we not be coaxed into fighting, or shunned for cowardess?

In the event of another war on the scale of WWII, I don't think saying yay or nay to Lisbon would change the "enemy's" mind IMO.

In reality, we've never been fully neutral and much of the time we side with the allied or Western side whether overtly or covertly, so regardless of this treaty, we, as a country will still stand on the same side of the fence we always have.

My 2 cents anyways

insert-gear

agree with above, and I'm voting yes

Pride Fighter

Good debate on Vincent Browne now. Has one of the UCD heads of arts on it. Joe Higgins kicked everyones ass though:)

errlloyd

Sure neutrality was an issue when we entered the ECC in the first place... Didn't make that a bad idea...

Het-Field

Are the L&H or LawSoc debating the issue in the coming weeks.

errlloyd

Lawsoc have Bertie Ahern and Mary Lou MacDonald coming in to debate it (aswell as a ton of other semi important speakers) I believe in the next week or two. So its not students debating, but surely its the next best thing.

(I'll put 10 euro on Mary Lou's head, dead not alive)

Het-Field

errlloyd wrote: »

Lawsoc have Bertie Ahern and Mary Lou MacDonald coming in to debate it (aswell as a ton of other semi important speakers) I believe in the next week or two. So its not students debating, but surely its the next best thing.

(I'll put 10 euro on Mary Lou's head, dead not alive)

Students should boycott this if Bertie is speaking.

Regardless of Lisbon etc, this is a man who drove this country to the brink of disaster. In fact, it may still prove to fall prey to disaster. Furthermore, he has no interest in taking responsibility for the mess, and still feels Ireland loves him.

errlloyd

Yeah defo, Bertie alone caused the world economic crisis.

You know when it was all beginning to go wrong, when we needed our leaders most. Thats when we pinned him into a tribunal and started ripping his life apart. Say what you want, I am going.

Het-Field

errlloyd wrote: »

Yeah defo, Bertie alone caused the world economic crisis.

You know when it was all beginning to go wrong, when we needed our leaders most. Thats when we pinned him into a tribunal and started ripping his life apart. Say what you want, I am going.

No it didnt. It started going wrong in 2004, when the PD influence in Govt was neutered, and Bertie surrounded himself with Yes Men like Biffo, and Cullen. At that point, Ireland started living off windfall taxes, while ignoring fiscal rectitude. There was no development of any sort of export market. The quick and easy money from VAT and Stamp Duty was enough to keep the Irish people quiet.

The world econonmic crisis is no longer relevant. Egypt is already in Growth, while the Green shoots have appeared in France and Germany. Ireland has no idea when it will return to growth. Ahernomics obliterated Irish competitiveness, created an unmanagable public defecit, and has given rise to the need for an NAMA, which either way will cost the Irish taxpayer for decades. The IMF,a nd OECD reports have highlighted that Bertie and Cowen's mismanagement is what cause our crisis.

He was hauled before the tribunal for a reason. However, that is irrelevant, as his poor economic management will be a far greater stain on his legacy

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Good debate on Vincent Browne now. Has one of the UCD heads of arts on it. Joe Higgins kicked everyones ass though:)

I disagreed with him but at least he made an attempt to actually debate the treaty, unlike everyone else on the panel. I'm lost for words at the way the Yes side is campaigning. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and I don't care if it's FF, FG or People Who Like To Take Their Gerbils For Walks For Europe doing it, it's still thick :mad:

Het-Field wrote: »

No it didnt. It started going wrong in 2004, when the PD influence in Govt was neutered, and Bertie surrounded himself with Yes Men like Biffo, and Cullen. At that point, Ireland started living off windfall taxes, while ignoring fiscal rectitude. There was no development of any sort of export market. The quick and easy money from VAT and Stamp Duty was enough to keep the Irish people quiet.

The world econonmic crisis is no longer relevant. Egypt is already in Growth, while the Green shoots have appeared in France and Germany. Ireland has no idea when it will return to growth. Ahernomics obliterated Irish competitiveness, created an unmanagable public defecit, and has given rise to the need for an NAMA, which either way will cost the Irish taxpayer for decades. The IMF,a nd OECD reports have highlighted that Bertie and Cowen's mismanagement is what cause our crisis.

He was hauled before the tribunal for a reason. However, that is irrelevant, as his poor economic management will be a far greater stain on his legacy

Well said.

Pride Fighter

Het-Field wrote: »

No it didnt. It started going wrong in 2004, when the PD influence in Govt was neutered, and Bertie surrounded himself with Yes Men like Biffo, and Cullen. At that point, Ireland started living off windfall taxes, while ignoring fiscal rectitude. There was no development of any sort of export market. The quick and easy money from VAT and Stamp Duty was enough to keep the Irish people quiet.

The world econonmic crisis is no longer relevant. Egypt is already in Growth, while the Green shoots have appeared in France and Germany. Ireland has no idea when it will return to growth. Ahernomics obliterated Irish competitiveness, created an unmanagable public defecit, and has given rise to the need for an NAMA, which either way will cost the Irish taxpayer for decades. The IMF,a nd OECD reports have highlighted that Bertie and Cowen's mismanagement is what cause our crisis.

He was hauled before the tribunal for a reason. However, that is irrelevant, as his poor economic management will be a far greater stain on his legacy

The great spoofer ruined this country, we will paying for this mess for 10 years:mad::mad:

errlloyd

Oh maybe you wish we had the political structure of Egypt then. Lebanon experienced growth right the way through, it helps when your nation is a steaming pile of **** to begin with.

As for France and Germany, they are two examples of success you have pulled out of a burning vat of failure.

Was Tony Blair **** for England? Pinning the blame for all of this on Bertie is very narrow minded, anyway even if you dislike the guy. At least go along to heckle and laugh as he stammers.

If you wanna be destructive about it, use some sort of pipe-bomb and then we can get rid of Mary Lou as well, that would be an ok compromise in my books.

Breezer

errlloyd wrote: »

Was Tony Blair **** for England? Pinning the blame for all of this on Bertie is very narrow minded, anyway even if you dislike the guy. At least go along to heckle and laugh as he stammers.

OK, I'll elaborate.

McCreevy dished out unsustainable budgets in order to win votes.

Cowen did likewise.

Harney talked about small government and created the biggest public service monolith this country has ever seen.

Dempsey wasted money on E voting.

McCreevy (again) of the "light touch" allowed bankers to do precisely what they liked (shockingly, bankers apparently liked making lots of money).

Haughey, Lawlor, Burke, the Flynn family and Bertie accepted brown envelopes left, right and centre, to hell with the public good.

No one from the government heeded the multiple warnings from Richard Bruton and many economists that we were heading for disaster. Bertie advised them to commit suicide.

The Financial Regulator did not do his job.

FÁS threw money around like it was going out of fashion.

Etc, etc, etc.

The central point here: Bertie Ahern presided over ALL of this. Bertie Ahern's job was to make sure those he appointed to positions of power acted in the public interest. Bertie Ahern did not do his job. Additionally, he spent months doing a lap of honour after the Tribunal dishonoured him, to the detriment of the first Yes campaign (although what they're at now is anyone's guess). So yes, I do blame Bertie. I also blame Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats (sorry Het-Field), and I blame the people who voted for them time and again, and I will certainly blame people who will still vote for them despite all this. :mad:

Rant over. I feel better now. Yes to Lisbon :pac:

Pride Fighter

Breezer wrote: »

OK, I'll elaborate.

McCreevy dished out unsustainable budgets in order to win votes.

Cowen did likewise.

Harney talked about small government and created the biggest public service monolith this country has ever seen.

Dempsey wasted money on E voting.

McCreevy (again) of the "light touch" allowed bankers to do precisely what they liked (shockingly, bankers apparently liked making lots of money).

Haughey, Lawlor, Burke, the Flynn family and Bertie accepted brown envelopes left, right and centre, to hell with the public good.

No one from the government heeded the multiple warnings from Richard Bruton and many economists that we were heading for disaster. Bertie advised them to commit suicide.

The Financial Regulator did not do his job.

FÁS threw money around like it was going out of fashion.

Etc, etc, etc.

The central point here: Bertie Ahern presided over ALL of this. Bertie Ahern's job was to make sure those he appointed to positions of power acted in the public interest. Bertie Ahern did not do his job. So yes, I do blame Bertie. I also blame Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats (sorry Het-Field), and I blame the people who voted for them time and again, and I will certainly blame people who will still vote for them despite all this. :mad:

Rant over. I feel better now. Yes to Lisbon :pac:

Agree with all except the last 3 words:)

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Agree with all except the last 3 words:)

As yes, but sure you have your head screwed on. You occasionally unscrew it and go badmouthing Fine Gael, but most of the time it's screwed on pretty tight

Het-Field

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh maybe you wish we had the political structure of Egypt then. Lebanon experienced growth right the way through, it helps when your nation is a steaming pile of **** to begin with.

As for France and Germany, they are two examples of success you have pulled out of a burning vat of failure.

Was Tony Blair **** for England? Pinning the blame for all of this on Bertie is very narrow minded, anyway even if you dislike the guy. At least go along to heckle and laugh as he stammers.

If you wanna be destructive about it, use some sort of pipe-bomb and then we can get rid of Mary Lou as well, that would be an ok compromise in my books.

So you are encouraging me to make an ad hominem attack on Bertie ? That is the most childish suggestion I have ever come across.

Egypt is not the only country. Australia (thanks to Mr Howard's fiscally conservative policies), and Canada have all been saved from financial disaster. Equally, we are far behind the countries which are below France and Germany. Ireland shall bottom out at a far lower level then most other European Countries. Hence, our recovery will take far longer, will be far more painful, and prove a greater incumbance on the taxpayer.

This is a recovery which has been necessitated by consistent increases of 10% in spending per annum. This was spending facilitated by borrowing, and unsustainable windfall taxes on property. The factors of productivity (so heavily relied on from 1997-2003) were thrown out the window. Job creation through schemes, privitisation, and tax breaks for sustainable companies were ignored. That was done by Bertie and Biffo. This was to ensure Bertie could call himself a socialist, and claim he was looking after the "staff". Remember his disgraceful decision to sack Willie Walsh out of Aer Lingus. Last year while Bertie was fudging responsibility for past indiscretions, and the collapse of Ireland's financial stability, Mr Walsh took unequivocable responsibility for BA grinding to a hault in July 2008.

Equally, Bertie held up Ireland's competitive ability by implementing a ridiculously high minimum wage, failing to do anything about the cost of electricity, and rental prices. This eroded Ireland as a competitive hub, and within months, Ireland had slipped from 2nd to 15th. This is one of the key reasons for mass relocation, and one of the reasons for company decision to exit Ireland, and move to a more comptetitive place.

The legislation governing banking regulation, was ratified by a FF led government. The regulator was ordered to defer to the Minister For Finance. Bertie didnt see that come to pass. As such, our banks were lending out more money, than they could possibly bring in. Reckless lending should have been rooted out, however, it suited the Bertie "economic model" to allow it continue, as "boutique banks" such as Anglo Irish lent ridiculous sums of money to random people. The bubble was based on a loose banking system, and bertie allowed that to flourish.

Pride Fighter, no need to be sorry ! In hindsight, there are a few things which I get annoyed at vis-a-vis the PDs. First, McDowell should ahve pulled the plug on Bertie in 2006. It would have been the end of his premiership, and the books could have been audited at a far earlier stage. Im equally annoyed that thePDs didnt call a halt to the wanton spending which the 2002-2007 government engaged in. However, I dont believe that the fiscally liberal politics used by FF, to proffer themselves as socialists, was supported in anyway by the PDs. As they had little or no ability to force FF's hands, the PDs played a redundant role ifrom 2002. FF could carry on without them, and in 2004, the PDs (and PD influence in McCreevy (whose lax attitude to fiscal rectitude flowed directly from Mr Ahern) and Brennan) was further eroded, as all the ministerial portfolios of the party became social ones. Our biggest mistake was not calling a halt to the unsustainable increases in spending. Hence, I dont try to absolve my party of blame.

However, the primary cause was the populist politics of a man whose hubris knows no bounds.

WeeBushy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Of course the fact that I now feel the EU in hosting a second referendum in essence pulled down their trousers and unloaded a big one on my vote, and on Irish democracy in general, means I now feel obligated on moral grounds to vote No. As I said before though I reckon it will pass this time and I feel after this I'll be done with voting for good. I feel like my democratic rights were robbed from me by Mr Barroso and co last year and I just want the whole thing over with. I'm sure many Yes voters couldn't give a toss but if the same thing happened to them I wonder how they would feel.

How you came to this idea is baffling. It is in no way undemocratic to run a second referendum.

1) Our democratically created constitution states that the government can run a second referendum, hell they can run as many as they see fit. And they are completely within their democratic right to do so.

2) They did listen to our NO vote least time. Hence the legal guarantees protecting us against many of the reasons we voted NO the first time. It also gives the cretins who voted no "cuz I didn't understand it" the chance to learn about the treaty and take part in democracy properly.

3) I'd love to know what you think of the referenda on divorce in Ireland. Do you think divorce should be forever illegal in Ireland because we voted against its introduction the first time? Did the government pull down their pants and unload a big one, as you so elegantly put it, on our vote when they ran a second referendum? I think not.

4) Let me put forward an analogy to the current situation:
You are eating in a restaurant and the waiter offers you desert, chocolate cake. Now you don't like cream so you ask the waiter if there is cream in the cake. He says yes so you decline the desert. The waiter knows how delicious this cake is so asks the chef if it would be possible for him to make the cake for you without cream, and the chef obliges. The waiter returns and asks you again would you like chocolate cake, but this time without cream. Now wouldn't it be unreasonable for you to start ranting and raving at the waiter "how dare you offer me cake again when I said no! How dare you think that you can ask me again, even though you have removed the part I don't like. No means no!"

If the people of Ireland want a NO vote this time around, then that is what we will get. And at no time will the government have stuck up two fingers to democracy. To say otherwise is just illogical.

I for one, however, hope this wont be the case.

Jev/N

WeeBushy wrote: »

How you came to this idea is baffling. It is in no way undemocratic to run a second referendum.

1) Our democratically created constitution states that the government can run a second referendum, hell they can run as many as they see fit. And they are completely within their democratic right to do so.

Exactly. It's not the first time they've re-run a referendum!

Pride Fighter

Jev/N wrote: »

Exactly. It's not the first time they've re-run a referendum!

True, but divorce referenda were spaced out over several years, not several months.

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

True, but divorce referenda were spaced out over several years, not several months.

Typical answer.

It was spaced over a period of ten years, however this was because circumstances (general public opinion) changed. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with time. Circumstances have changed with regards to the Lisbon treaty (the reasons we voted no the first time were addressed with legal guarantees, and it was found out that a large proportion of people voted no because they were ignorant on what they were voting, but I'm sure you already know the reasons) so a second referendum is needed.

Pride Fighter

WeeBushy wrote: »

Typical answer.

It was spaced over a period of ten years, however this was because circumstances (general public opinion) changed. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with time. Circumstances have changed with regards to the Lisbon treaty (the reasons we voted no the first time were addressed with legal guarantees, and it was found out that a large proportion of people voted no because they were ignorant on what they were voting, but I'm sure you already know the reasons) so a second referendum is needed.

Nonsense, not one word of the treaty has been changed. These 'guarantees' are not legally binding.