NO Voters - Which group are you closest to?

Euro_Kraut

There are many groups opposing the treaty. Some from a left wing perceptive, some from a right wing perspective, some from nationalist, some from religious and some from a feminist perspective.

So to understand from what perceptive you are opposing this treaty from can you say which of the following groups best represent your critisms of the Lisbon treaty?

- Coir
- Libertas
- Pana
- Sinn Fein
- National Platform
- Socialist Party
- People before Profit
- People Movement (Patrica McKennas group)
- UKIP
- Women Say No to Lisbon
- Eirigi
- Unite (Trade Union)

While perhaps no one group represents your views completely, I would still be interested in hearing which groups criticism of the Treaty are closest to yours?

Mods: Can you add a poll to this prehaps? Also would appreciate it if you could add in a important group that I have forgot.

bobgob

all and none of the above, I think the race to the bottom has to be looked at.
jobs and the lack of them is the main problem we have, taking people out of good jobs and giving them to min wage staff is only breaking our backs, because then we have to pay double for the unemployed and the low earners while the big boys get away scot free.

We will have to deal with the poor forever the rich can wine and dine even on their losses, when will this country ever wake up, this is not a republic its a feckin joke.

Its time to be free and time to get out of your armchair.

Say what you see, corruption, bribery, misplacement of our money, and complete and other greed and thats just our leaders, the bankers and their croneys are laughing their feckin heads off at us, whats the point in speculating if you have a trap door to get you out even if you feck it up, jesus its better than the lotto.
Lets get our heads out of the sand and fight this

---

I did have a few words to go in there but you can fill it in yourself.

Sam Vimes

While I agree with you for the most part, what does any of that have to do with the Lisbon treaty?

Euro_Kraut

Bobgob, I'll stick you down for 'Socialist Party' on the strength of the 'race to the bottom' line. I definitely sense their is a leftist perceptive in there.

That ok with you?

bobgob

well the race to the bottom has begun, workers have very few things to be happy about now but if the lisbon treaty is passed the race to the bottom, ie the bigger profits for the bigger companys will only get better for them.

I worked for Dublin Bus a few years ago when the goverment was trying to privitise their service, they didnt do it because someone in the dpt of transport told them it was impossible, why because they were afraid of the union and what we may of done to their (at that time ) perfect world.

Workers and the unemployed (usually can be placed in the same bracket these days) have everything to fear from the Lisbon treaty it brings mana from heaven to the employers and sends the worker to hell.

bobgob

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Bobgob, I'll stick you down for 'Socialist Party' on the strength of the 'race to the bottom' line. I definitely sense their is a leftist perceptive in there.

That ok with you?

yeah no problem with that.

before this nama thing I only watched the news for the sports and weather, when I got chucked from my job I started to look left, then they told me because they were only making 200 million for the first 6 months of the year it kind of pushed me over the edge, my kids now have to get their education from you and the rest of the working people of Ireland, because the bastards that I work for fecked me out, no Im not left Im angry and as you all know I cant be angry and be ff or green.

Scofflaw

Can we stay on topic please? This is quite a specific thread, not yet another discussion of Lisbon itself.

[EDIT]Sigh. Moved posts to "How do you intend to vote?" thread. Next off-topic post by same posters earns rap on knuckles.[/EDIT]

moderately,
Scofflaw

The Volt

Just the thread I was waiting to see. When these people are pro-something it is usually a stand alone reason to vote against them.

The Volt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While I agree with you for the most part, what does any of that have to do with the Lisbon treaty?

This response to the first reply pretty much sums up the majority of the no campaign on boards.

O'Morris

The National Platform would best represent my views on the Lisbon treaty and on further European integration. I think it's a pity that Anthony Coughlan isn't taking more of a prominent role in the referendum campaign.

The Immigration Control Platform (anti-Lisbon but missing from the list above) and the UKIP best represent my views on mass immigration. If there was an Irish Independence Party with the same policies as the UKIPers I would probably vote for them.

squod

I don't see any of these groups talking about the way voting structures will change under Lisbon. Also it seems to be only the UKIP asking why it is that we're voting so soon on the same treaty, without much discussion across Europe.

The Volt

When I first noticed this thread I thought it read 'which group are you closet to?' how appropriate

StealthRolex

I too would go with the National Platform as they are raising the same concerns I have in regards to this issue.

ascanbe

I voted No last time and don't consider myself close to any of these groups; is that allowed?
There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other, preferably one that can be easily portrayed as 'loons'.

The Volt

ascanbe wrote: »

I voted No last time and don't consider myself close to any of these groups; is that allowed?
There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other, preferably one that can be easily portrayed as 'loons'.

Mainly because the reasons given for No votes have come from the above mentioned groups

turgon

ascanbe wrote: »

There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other

I voted No the last time and the only person who ever attempted to pigeon-hole me was a fellow No voter, who asked was my voting no for Right reasons of Left reasons.

Euro_Kraut

ascanbe wrote: »

I voted No last time and don't consider myself close to any of these groups; is that allowed?
There seems to be concerted attempt by the Yes campaign to pigeonhole No voters; to imply that anyone even considering voting No must have ideological links to some group or other, preferably one that can be easily portrayed as 'loons'.

Janyey, relax. I am only asking which group you are ideologically closest too. Your reasons for voting no must be most similar one or other of theses groups. You surely must agree with some of what these groups are saying? Which do you agree most with?

On aside note, why do you consider these groups listed to be 'loons'? I wouldn't be inclined to label SF or Libertas or The Socialist Party as 'loons'.

StealthRolex

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Janyey, relax. I am only asking which group you are ideologically closest too. Your reasons for voting no must be most similar one or other of theses groups. You surely must agree with some of what these groups are saying? Which do you agree most with?

On aside note, why do you consider these groups listed to be 'loons'? I wouldn't be inclined to label SF or Libertas or The Socialist Party as 'loons'.

Euro_Kraut, if you've been around these boards and this particular discussion over the last few weeks it is patently obvious that there are a certain number of Yes posters who immediately class any and all No voters as loonies and nut cases and lump them in with the nuts and nay sayers.

I've worked enough referenda campaigns in the past to know that each side, regardless of their point of view, should be treated with equal respect until they do or say something that indicates no further quarter should be given. This is democracy in action and in general the opposing opinions are usually valid. They may in some cases be misguided but as opinions go they are valid.

I was posting on these boards but had to desist due to the comments from the yes quarter that were frankly insulting at best. There are a few, but unfortunately they are few, who earned respect but in general the nature of most responses were not diplomatic.

SF and the Socialists have been labelled in these discussions as "extremist" and Libertas has been lambasted no end.

But as I said, I have worked campaigns in the past and this is part and parcel of Irish culture. If someone opposes you and you cannot counter their argument call them a misguided looney to score the point.

Euro_Kraut

StealthRolex wrote: »

Euro_Kraut, if you've been around these boards and this particular discussion over the last few weeks it is patently obvious that there are a certain number of Yes posters who immediately class any and all No voters as loonies and nut cases and lump them in with the nuts and nay sayers.

Some might. That is not the purpose of this thread (or the corresponding YES one) though. I am interested to see what groups are most influential to each side and from what perspective posters here oppose the treaty.

You don't have to divulge that, but I resent the implication that the purpose of this is to label all NO Voters 'loons'. In fact by demonstrating solid ideological foundations for their NO vote I think people have the opportunity to dismiss that notion. People oppose this on legitimate ideological grounds. Let see what those are.

rowlandbrowner

I’m an unaffiliated socialist, so lump me in with Joe and his crowd if you want, i'm not a member, but I have voted for that party and attended meetings ect..

I'm voting No for the following reasons, and more...

I believe EU polices will contine to force workers to undercut each other, driving down wages, much to the happiness of employers.

I don't believe in privatising public services, we loose our power to resist this happening under Lisbon.

I won’t back a common foreign policy that won’t demand a state for the Palestinians with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The EDA and it's incorporation into the treaty.

There are certainly elements of Lisbon and Politics in general that I don’t comprehend correctly, I guess that’s the idea, but basically....

I’d like to elect a Democratic Socialist government in my lifetime, If we become more politically and economically involved with the EU that’s an impossibility.

I’d like to live in a United Europe, I’m not a Nationalist by any means, but the only Europe on the table at the moment is at odds with my political beliefs/hopes.

StealthRolex

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Some might. That is not the purpose of this thread (or the corresponding YES one) though. I am interested to see what groups are most influential to each side and from what perspective posters here oppose the treaty.

You don't have to divulge that, but I resent the implication that the purpose of this is to label all NO Voters 'loons'. In fact by demonstrating solid ideological foundations for their NO vote I think people have the opportunity to dismiss that notion. People oppose this on legitimate ideological grounds. Let see what those are.

No implication intended - I understand where you're coming from with the thread - just an observation of the behaviour of some Yes poster responses. No doubt there are some No posters guilty of similar.

OldJay

bobgob wrote: »

Workers and the unemployed (usually can be placed in the same bracket these days) . . .

Oh ffs . . . :rolleyes:

bobgob wrote: »

have everything to fear from the Lisbon treaty it brings mana from heaven to the employers and sends the worker to hell.

Y'know melodramatic rhetoric is all very well and good but for once, I'd love a naysayer to actually back up their alleged reasoning with some solid directly attributable fact exemplified with relevant extracts of said Treaty.
C'mon. Go for it . . .

Sam Vimes

Justind wrote: »

Y'know melodramatic rhetoric is all very well and good but for once, I'd love a naysayer to actually back up their alleged reasoning with some solid directly attributable fact exemplified with relevant extracts of said Treaty.
C'mon. Go for it . . .

The example I keep hearing to prove this is a ruling from Sweden that Latvian workers could be paid Latvian rates when working in Sweden. They miss out two important factors:

1. Sweden has no minimum wage and if it did the court would not have ruled the way it did
2. This has already happened and has nothing to do with the treaty

http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=96

StealthRolex

Justind wrote: »

Y'know melodramatic rhetoric is all very well and good but for once, I'd love a naysayer to actually back up their alleged reasoning with some solid directly attributable fact exemplified with relevant extracts of said Treaty.
C'mon. Go for it . . .

a bit of equilibrium would go a long way here - can the yahsayers back up their reasoning re jobs, recovery etc with relevant extracts from the Treaty?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

a bit of equilibrium would go a long way here - can the yahsayers back up their reasoning re jobs, recovery etc with relevant extracts from the Treaty?

A post I have made previously:

If we vote it down again that cements us as a country that's going against the grain in Europe even though being in Europe is one of our most important advantages and creates uncertainty about our future as the EU moves on and we try to fight them every step of the way. I can't say for sure what the consequences of a second no will be but neither can you say that there will be no consequences and it's the "safe" option

As I said on another thread, Ireland is becoming unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Even if they only include things that Ireland can opt out of in future treaties they're not sure to pass because some group could easily tell us that they're not really allowing us to opt out and we might believe them as we've believed all the other lies. Besides which they don't want to limit themselves to only changes that countries can opt out of. Really the only way to have any confidence of getting a treaty passed in future is for Ireland to be excluded entirely.

So that's the consequence of a no vote. Ireland becomes the only country that has voted down three EU treaties and is putting the entire future of the EU in jeopardy because we can stall progress all we want and we're impossible to negotiate with because our objections have little or nothing to do with the treaties we're voting down. And that situation can only go on so long before the other 500 million people tell us to fcuk off and let them get on with their plans

Then we have an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

Mr Cowen said all the main business groupings and the Irish heads of several multi-national firms were “crystal clear” in their view that reluctance to endorse the treaty, together with the resulting perception that “we are somewhat a-la-carte in terms of our commitment to Europe”, would make it more difficult to attract and secure inward investment.

“Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, to the exporters of Ireland, to the farmers’ representative groups and to the employers themselves.

“Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.”

The treaty will have implications beyond the text written in it. The difference between the yes side talking about a yes vote helping recovery and the various no side predictions is that a yes vote helping recovery is a possibility and all of the people best positioned to confirm the probability of the prediction support it while the no side predictions are simply lies. They will never happen, ever because they're not true in any way whatsoever. The only one that has even a slim chance of happening is that a no vote might hasten a general election but it's extremely unlikely because his main opponents also support Lisbon so none of them would have any more of a mandate on the issue and is extremely unwise because a no vote will do far more damage to the country than it will to FF

turgon

StealthRolex wrote: »

If someone opposes you and you cannot counter their argument call them a misguided looney to score the point.

No, the problem is that we can oppose them and prove them wrong yet they continue in spouting their lies.

As a No voter last time, I was treated with a great level of respect here (more than I deserved).

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A post I have made previously:


Then we have an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

So, do you have anything of substance from the Treaty itself?

Anything at all? From the Treaty maybe?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

So, do you have anything of substance from the Treaty itself?

Anything at all? From the Treaty maybe?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The treaty will have implications beyond the text written in it. The difference between the yes side talking about a yes vote helping recovery and the various no side predictions is that a yes vote helping recovery is a possibility and all of the people best positioned to confirm the probability of the prediction support it while the no side predictions are simply lies. They will never happen, ever because they're not true in any way whatsoever.

What is your point? Is your suggestion seriously that Ireland's acceptance or rejection of the treaty cannot possibly have any implications that are not explicitly spelled out in one of the articles?

rowlandbrowner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If we vote it down again that cements us as a country that's going against the grain in Europe even though being in Europe is one of our most important advantages and creates uncertainty about our future as the EU moves on and we try to fight them every step of the way. I can't say for sure what the consequences of a second no will be but neither can you say that there will be no consequences and it's the "safe" option

As I said on another thread, Ireland is becoming unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Even if they only include things that Ireland can opt out of in future treaties they're not sure to pass because some group could easily tell us that they're not really allowing us to opt out and we might believe them as we've believed all the other lies. Besides which they don't want to limit themselves to only changes that countries can opt out of. Really the only way to have any confidence of getting a treaty passed in future is for Ireland to be excluded entirely.

So that's the consequence of a no vote. Ireland becomes the only country that has voted down three EU treaties and is putting the entire future of the EU in jeopardy because we can stall progress all we want and we're impossible to negotiate with because our objections have little or nothing to do with the treaties we're voting down. And that situation can only go on so long before the other 500 million people tell us to fcuk off and let them get on with their plans

In short, we should make political decisions to suit the needs of big business. Assume the position and get ready to get f**ked by the unforgiving phallus of investment.

Is there anything in the treaty, not that you seemed bothered with its actual content, which prevents these companies from leaving Ireland when they can operate cheaper somewhere else.

Its pandering to these economic forces that got the world in the state it’s in.

Scofflaw

Like all the treaties, Lisbon tries to balance the need for business freedom (to make jobs) with labour's right to be protected in those jobs.

You may not like the way the world is, but it's what most people vote for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

In short, we should make political decisions to suit the needs of big business. Assume the position and get ready to get f**ked by the unforgiving phallus of investment.

Is there anything in the treaty, not that you seemed bothered with its actual content, which prevents these companies from leaving Ireland when they can operate cheaper somewhere else.

Its pandering to these economic forces that got the world in the state it’s in.

Those economic forces have created ~140,000 jobs in this country. Their needs are our needs. I am quite bothered with the treaty's content btw and if you search my post history you will see that. I was asked a question that cannot be answered by referring to the treaty contents and so I did not refer to the treaty contents in my reply. In direct answer to StealthRolex's question, no there is no article which specifically states "100,000 jobs will be created in Ireland" but to point this out is disingenuous because, as I have said, the treaty will have implications far beyond the text of its articles. You know that, I know that and StealthRolex knows that but it suits his argument to ignore it.

One of the things that makes companies leave Ireland is the fact that they can operate cheaper elsewhere but that is not the only factor they consider. Another previous post of mine:

. No one has ever claimed that we'll be kicked out but Europe wants to move on and a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries can't stop them forever. They will, and are perfectly entitled to, rewrite the treaty to exclude Ireland, only enacting the changes that Ireland can opt out of. That way they get most of the changes they want and we get to stay where we are, all on our own.

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

So, in short, no one's saying we're getting kicked out of the EU but that's not the only way Ireland can be negatively effected

This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Irish heads of several multi-national firms, employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, farmers’ representative groups and the employers themselves. As the article I linked to says, those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.

If you think you know more about how the economy works than them then feel free to ignore them. Personally I don't