Why does every single thread about this one treaty turn into a debate about the EU?

hatrickpatrick

Is this a stuid argument from the Yes side or the No side? Who's responsible for constantly bringing it out?

It's seriously beginning to get on my nerves.

The Lisbon vote is NOT a referendum about whether or not we should be members of the EU. It's about whether the EU system should change in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty or not.

It's getting so unbelievably old. Even the most vocal yes campaigners from the EU itself have assured us that there's no possibility of a country being kicked out. It can't be done.

I've posted this analogy in a lot of other threads but it's been buried in the countless other issues being thrown around, so let's have it here once and for all.

Two guys are passengers on a ship and the captain has just announced that after a few weeks of uncertainty about the next destination for the ship, himself and the crew have decided that London should be the next port of call. He puts this suggestion to the passengers and asks them to vote on it.

The two passengers I mentioned earlier are arguing about whether to agree to the change or not. Passenger A wants to go to London but Passenger B really doesn't.

Their conversation:
Passenger A: You should vote yes to this thing.
Passenger B: Well... Why exactly?
Passenger A: This is a good, fast, and well built ship which has never let us down.
Passenger B: ....So?
Passenger A: Well this is effectively a vote on whether we want to be on board the ship or not. And we're better off on the ship than swimming, aren't we? (mutters about how obvious that should be)
Passenger B: ...But we're not voting on whether to get off the ship, we're voting on whether we should change course and head for London.
Passenger A: Well it is essentially a vote on whether we want to be on this ship or not.
Passenger B: How's that? We're voting on whether to go to London or not. It's fairly obvious that they're not going to just throw us overboard if we vote no. The captain himself said so and so did the crew.
Passenger A: (long pause) .....................We're better off on this ship. Vote Yes.
Passenger B: *sigh* Are you even listening to a word I'm saying or are you just going to keep repeating that irrelevant fact?
Passenger A: .......................................................Vote yes.
Passenger B: . . .

ei.sdraob

The Lisbon vote is NOT a referendum about whether or not we should be members of the EU

you are right Lisbon is not a referendum on our membership.

but since

UKIP have now entered the debate on the NO side and will send leaflets to every Irish home

and

UKIP's main policy is withdrawal from EU as per their "vision" document

The UK Independence Party is committed to withdrawing Britain from the European Union. As the debate on the Lisbon Treaty has now made clear, the EU agenda is complete political union with all the main functions of national government taken over by the bureaucratic institutions of Brussels.

UKIP believes that this is not only bad for Britain's economy and prosperity, but it is an alien system of government that will ultimately prove to be totally unacceptable to the British people.

UKIP would replace Britain's membership of the European Union with the kind of agreements on free trade and co-operation that we thought we had signed up to when we first joined what was then called the European Economic Community..

why are these people who are not Irish, whose main policy revolves around leaving the EU are getting involved in Ireland's affairs?

theres no possibility of Ireland leaving the EU in either case but with UKIP now entering the picture the debate gets interesting, and unfortunately these people would like to see nothing better than EU fall apart

/

K-9

If people would stop mentioning sovereignty, there might be less chance.

Most threads bring up sovereignty so the obvious reply is: name me a situation where the EU has over ruled Irelands' wishes?

Rb

You're absolutely right, the Yes side are turning this referendum into something it's not as they can't sell the treaty to the Irish people, so have to resort to veiled threats and slogans such as "Vote Yes for Recovery".

It's kind of ironic though because they're the very same people who whinged that the votes last time were based on things that had little to do with the treaty itself. Well played on that front anyway.

If the thing had been put forward correctly in the first place we wouldn't have the issue now. Both sides are guilty of distracting people from the actual issue at hand, but now the Yes side are guilty of doing what they cried foul at the No side doing in the first referendum.

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

If people would stop mentioning sovereignty, there might be less chance.

Most threads bring up sovereignty so the obvious reply is: name me a situation where the EU has over ruled Irelands' wishes?

If people would stop mentioning democracy, there might be less chance.

Most threads bring up democracy so the obvious reply is: name me a situation where the EU has over ruled Irelands' democracy?

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Two guys are passengers on a ship and the captain has just announced that after a few weeks of uncertainty about the next destination for the ship, himself and the crew have decided that London should be the next port of call. He puts this suggestion to the passengers and asks them to vote on it.

The two passengers I mentioned earlier are arguing about whether to agree to the change or not. Passenger A wants to go to London but Passenger B really doesn't.

Your analogy is interesting. The problem is that a ship like that needs to put into port at some point. Most people take cruises to actually go places. Also the crew didn't decide the destination. The passengers agreed among themselves and then asked their parents for permission.

There are actually 26 other passengers that want to go to London. Passenger B actually does sort of want to go to London but his parents are telling him he doesn't have permission. The 26 other passengers want to know where B wants to go but B doesn't really know. Just not London...

"So you just want us to circle the ocean for a few more years while you try to figure out where you think we should all go?"
"Yes?!" says B. "That would be great. Thanks!"
"Don't you care what we think?"

Now the rules may say that the ship does not set into port until all the passengers agree, but it would not be unreasonable for the others to get a little frustrated? Perhaps to suggest that B considers leaving the ship while he considers whether he really wants to travel by sea? Or suggest that he agree that they go to London but he will stay on board while the others tour the city. Then they can go somewhere else and he can stay on board there too.

So while the question appears to be only do you want to go to London, if B cannot come up with another option that is agreeable to the others then the whole idea behind the trip starts to come into question. No one will be thrown overboard, but a ship endlessly circling and never putting into port is not ideal. Eventually the ship will run out of fuel and food and B will have to agree to some destination or else get on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.


Ix.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thought experiment:

If you wanted Ireland out of the EU, would you be more likely to advocate a 'yes' or 'no' to Lisbon?

hatrickpatrick

Personally I'd probably say vote yes to this first, because as Scofflaw has pointed out on many occasions the Lisbon treaty actually makes it much easier to leave by establishing a formal procedure for this. As far as I know there is no such procedure as of Nice, so the protocol for leaving is unknown.

meglome

I agree with the OP's point. Unfortunately when you look at the pedigree of the No campaign they have voted no to every EU treaty, including when we joined. So when you read enough posts from certain people it's very easy to pick up an anti-EU vibe even though some of them won't come out and say it. It's very annoying to keep responding to the same 'the EU are out to get us' nonsense but what do you do.

Rb wrote: »

You're absolutely right, the Yes side are turning this referendum into something it's not as they can't sell the treaty to the Irish people, so have to resort to veiled threats and slogans such as "Vote Yes for Recovery".

It's kind of ironic though because they're the very same people who whinged that the votes last time were based on things that had little to do with the treaty itself. Well played on that front anyway.

If the thing had been put forward correctly in the first place we wouldn't have the issue now. Both sides are guilty of distracting people from the actual issue at hand, but now the Yes side are guilty of doing what they cried foul at the No side doing in the first referendum.

he he he he ah come on. As I keep saying I'm not a fan of how the Yes campaign is being run but the blatant lies of the No campaign are disgusting, some even slight balance wouldn't go amiss.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

If people would stop mentioning sovereignty, there might be less chance.

Most threads bring up sovereignty so the obvious reply is: name me a situation where the EU has over ruled Irelands' wishes?

The Metock case (2009) where they overruled us on marriages of convenience for immigration purposes.

meglome wrote:

Unfortunately when you look at the pedigree of the No campaign they have voted not to every EU treaty, including when we joined.

Hold your horses for a minute. Ganley says he voted for Nice. I voted for Amsterdam and both Nice Treaties. I actually went on Southeast radio to argue passionately for a yes vote. So don't be lumping me and 864,000 other people in with opponents of EU membership because that is utter rubbish and you know it. The no vote has risen from 17% in 1972 to 54% since we joined. That can't be accounted for by the usual suspects who have always voted no and you know it.

There are people on the yes and no side who were on the other side in previous EU referenda. Most notably the Greens who also opposed every EU treaty before Lisbon. In fact, at the Convention on the Future of Europe, John Gormley was a co-signatury to a document opposing the EU Constitution. Now he's supporting the almost identical Lisbon Treaty. Labour opposed joining the EEC in 1972. Yet I don't hear you mentioning that when you claim that the no side are 'the same who always opposed the EU'. Labour opposed it in 1972, and the Greens in 1987/1992/1998/2001/2002. Yet they conveniently escape your notice when claiming it's just the usual suspects voting no. It isn't.

BlitzKrieg

The Lisbon vote is NOT a referendum about whether or not we should be members of the EU. It's about whether the EU system should change in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty or not.

I had a thread a bit further down listing out a series of articles listed by the people's movement as reasons to vote no to lisbon. Quite a nuimber of those articles are unchanged from Nice. Some unchanged from amsterdam.

Running from that I wouldnt personnally attack every party on the no campaign as being on the no side for simply being anti EU and not caring about the treaty contents.

But when issues like the above and also for example the Sinn Feinn headquarters on parnell street have a sign up with a red circle and line crossing out EU, it makes it hard not to accept that the issues with the EU run deeper then simply Lisbon.


A curious wording I noticed though is that when this issue comes up the response tends to be *I'm not anti europe i'm anti lisbon* which always makes me want to ask what they mean by anti europe, rather then anti european union. WHat does it mean not to be anti europe. Europe is a continent, you can argue yoiu are not anti europe if you recognise its existence. Personnally I would perfer to push for a more specific answer on that phrase, are you anti European Union?* rather then simply not anti europe.

hatrickpatrick

I'm not anti EU. I have never said I was, and as long as it doesn't become too powerful I won't be.

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I had a thread a bit further down listing out a series of articles listed by the people's movement as reasons to vote no to lisbon. Quite a nuimber of those articles are unchanged from Nice. Some unchanged from amsterdam.

Running from that I wouldnt personnally attack every party on the no campaign as being on the no side for simply being anti EU and not caring about the treaty contents.

But when issues like the above and also for example the Sinn Feinn headquarters on parnell street have a sign up with a red circle and line crossing out EU, it makes it hard not to accept that the issues with the EU run deeper then simply Lisbon.


A curious wording I noticed though is that when this issue comes up the response tends to be *I'm not anti europe i'm anti lisbon* which always makes me want to ask what they mean by anti europe, rather then anti european union. WHat does it mean not to be anti europe. Europe is a continent, you can argue yoiu are not anti europe if you recognise its existence. Personnally I would perfer to push for a more specific answer on that phrase, are you anti European Union?* rather then simply not anti europe.

Unless you are a psychic, you cannot read my mind as a no voter. I prefer the EU as it stands, but I also regret having voted for the Nice Treaty because of the exploitation of migrant labour. There has to be a limit to the centralisation of decisionmaking in Brussels. Otherwise we'll have no independence left, calling into question what yes - 1916 - was for. People died for this country's independence, and their memory is being betrayed.

What you also need to understand, is that when people vote for a Treaty, it doesn't mean they agree with 100% of its contents. It means they are going to take the good with the bad because they believe that it is better for Ireland as a package. That isb't the same as actively agreeing with them. A particularly vivd reminder of this was when John Bruton described Nice I as "a disaster" and then asked us to vote for it.

BlitzKrieg

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not anti EU. I have never said I was, and as long as it doesn't become too powerful I won't be.

SOrry I didnt mean you specifically, my opinion was mostly coming from the debates I have visited and the one's I have watched. I mostly referring to those actively campaigning (hence why I named clear flaws in party policies that show them to be more then simply anti lisbon) as FT says I aint psychic so I cant read the voter's minds unless of course they discuss their opinion and position on the EU and Lisbon, where it helps if that discussion doesnt involve copy/paste of a certain list of the 13 *facts* etc rather then someone giving their own genuine observations.

ei.sdraob

To sum it up


the main parties on the NO side,
have a long history of opposing almost all movement towards EU integration, up to including joining the EU,
some like UKIP as already pointed out run exclusively on the policy of withdrawal from EU,
others like Libertas claim they are pro European but then propose policies like a "blue" card which effectively removes the foundation of EU which is "free movement of goods, services and people",
also the words "democracy" gets twisted and abused to the point where it looses meaning, not to mention disregard of our constitution



its hard to feel that*some of the NOoooes want nothing better than to see EU fall apart of Ireland standing alone (or worse under British boot) on global stage, even a basic grasp of economics and Irish history would reveal what a terrible idea that would be


sorry for long post, but it has to be said