NO Voters - Which group are you closest to?

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

It's not a case of ignoring them it's a case of looking at where their loyalties lie.

With indigenous Irish firms (please don't use Waterford as an example) there is a greater interest in staying in Ireland.
Why should we continue to pander to the inward foreign investor? We have a bright, intelligent, educated and informed workforce and probably quite a few willing to risk it to start new businesses. We need to change our attitude and stop sending the message that we need companies to come here. What we need to do is develop our own skills and resources.

Regardless of what the Treaty says or does, ratified or not foreign companies will remain foreign and as soon as the opportunity arises to move operations to a more cost effective area they will move.

Why oh why do we keep repeating the mistakes of history? How many more Dells, Wangs, Motorolas, Asahi's, Fruit of the Looms do we need?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not a case of ignoring them it's a case of looking at where their loyalties lie.

With indigenous Irish firms (please don't use Waterford as an example) there is a greater interest in staying in Ireland.
Why should we continue to pander to the inward foreign investor? We have a bright, intelligent, educated and informed workforce and probably quite a few willing to risk it to start new businesses. We need to change our attitude and stop sending the message that we need companies to come here. What we need to do is develop our own skills and resources.

Regardless of what the Treaty says or does, ratified or not foreign companies will remain foreign and as soon as the opportunity arises to move operations to a more cost effective area they will move.

Why oh why do we keep repeating the mistakes of history? How many more Dells, Wangs, Motorolas, Asahi's, Fruit of the Looms do we need?

We need to do both though, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do far more to to encourage native enterprise. I would like us to move away from using the term 'Knowledge Economy' as a political buzzword and towards taking some firm and meaningful action to actually make it so.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not a case of ignoring them it's a case of looking at where their loyalties lie

Their loyalties lie with the place that will make them the most money at the least risk. The rejection of three European treaties increases the risk that Ireland will not go along with the rest of Europe and these are the people they want to sell to.

StealthRolex wrote: »

With indigenous Irish firms (please don't use Waterford as an example) there is a greater interest in staying in Ireland.
Why should we continue to pander to the inward foreign investor? We have a bright, intelligent, educated and informed workforce and probably quite a few willing to risk it to start new businesses. We need to change our attitude and stop sending the message that we need companies to come here. What we need to do is develop our own skills and resources.

Regardless of what the Treaty says or does, ratified or not foreign companies will remain foreign and as soon as the opportunity arises to move operations to a more cost effective area they will move.

Why oh why do we keep repeating the mistakes of history? How many more Dells, Wangs, Motorolas, Asahi's, Fruit of the Looms do we need?

Yes Ireland probably could start more companies themselves but that does not mean we should stick two fingers up to foreign investment, we can have both. This exchange has gone exactly the same way every other exchange I've had on this matter:

1. No voter says that the treaty has nothing to do with the economy
2. I point out how it could very much have an effect on the economy and that the biggest players in our economy all agree it will
3. No voter attempts to downplay this and make out that it doesn't matter

So which is it? Will the treaty have no effect on our economy or is it that it quite easily could but it doesn't matter if all those multi-billion dollar companies pull out because Ireland might be able to replace all those jobs if we set our minds to starting companies that some day might be as big as those companies?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. No voter says that the treaty has nothing to do with the economy

I'd just like to quote Tesco's sources; 'Tesco Ireland’s domestic spend was €1.28 billion on Irish goods, including food, and its operations were worth €2.5 billion a year to the Irish economy, supporting 27,000 jobs in the Republic.' ( Irish Times, May 20, 2009)

Another company you don't see reacting to the Lisbon referendum. They haven't released an opinion for or against the Lisbon treaty. Drawing direct parallels between improving the economy and voting for Lisbon does seem a weak argument IMO.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

I'd just like to quote Tesco's sources; 'Tesco Ireland’s domestic spend was €1.28 billion on Irish goods, including food, and its operations were worth €2.5 billion a year to the Irish economy, supporting 27,000 jobs in the Republic.' ( Irish Times, May 20, 2009)

Another company you don't see reacting to the Lisbon referendum. They haven't released an opinion for or against the Lisbon treaty. Drawing direct parallels between improving the economy and voting for Lisbon does seem a weak argument IMO.

you point to one company that hasn't released an opinion on the treaty and use this to suggest that there is no link between the treaty and potential economic improvement

What about the many companies that have released an opinion on the treaty? Are they all wrong because Tesco hasn't released one?

oscarBravo

squod wrote: »

I'd just like to quote Tesco's sources; 'Tesco Ireland’s domestic spend was €1.28 billion on Irish goods, including food, and its operations were worth €2.5 billion a year to the Irish economy, supporting 27,000 jobs in the Republic.' ( Irish Times, May 20, 2009)

Another company you don't see reacting to the Lisbon referendum. They haven't released an opinion for or against the Lisbon treaty. Drawing direct parallels between improving the economy and voting for Lisbon does seem a weak argument IMO.

I think if I was running Tesco, I'd be very cautious about being seen to openly support anything to do with the EU. It wouldn't play well in certain circles back home.

PomBear

i'm closest to Sinn Féin I guess as i'm a member of ógra shinn féin

Euro_Kraut

PomBear wrote: »

i'm closest to Sinn Féin I guess as i'm a member of ógra shinn féin

Cool. Thanks for being on-topic!

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you point to one company that hasn't released an opinion on the treaty and use this to suggest that there is no link between the treaty and potential economic improvement

What about the many companies that have released an opinion on the treaty? Are they all wrong because Tesco hasn't released one?

You asked a question, 'Will the treaty have no effect on our economy'.......
I've given my response, told you my opinion and said that there are companies that haven't commented on the Lisbon referendum at all.

With regard to the companies seeking a majority yes vote, I have not heard even one of them ask why we are voting again so soon on the same treaty. Nor have I heard them comment on the the way voting structures will change under Lisbon and how those changes will effect democracy accross Europe.

Perhaps if someone put these points to them I would have a clearer understanding as to why they would like a majority yes vote.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

You asked a question, 'Will the treaty have no effect on our economy'.......
I've given my response, told you my opinion and said that there are companies that haven't commented on the Lisbon referendum at all.

Yes and I could give you a few billion organisations that haven't said the treaty will be bad. The organisations that haven't voiced any opinion on the treaty are irrelevant.

squod wrote: »

With regard to the companies seeking a majority yes vote, I have not heard even one of them ask why we are voting again so soon on the same treaty.

But it's been explained here 1,596,682,383,947,349,283,294,349,394,587,183 times (give or take) and the reasoning makes perfect sense so, again, the fact that they haven't given an opinion on that matter is irrelevant. I'm talking only about the things they have said, not the infinite number of things that they haven't.

squod wrote: »

Nor have I heard them comment on the the way voting structures will change under Lisbon and how those changes will effect democracy accross Europe.

Perhaps if someone put these points to them I would have a clearer understanding as to why the would like a majority yes vote.

You could of course accept the reasons they have given for supporting a yes vote, instead of searching for some unknown ulterior motive so you can dismiss them. They think it will be beneficial to the economy and Ireland in general and this benefits them. Their motives for supporting a yes vote are crystal clear. They don't give a crap about voting weights, they care about Ireland signalling an intention to be fully involved in EU affairs going into the future, instead of the stumbling block that's preventing progress for no good reason and pulling away from its neighbours

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes and I could give you a few billion organisations that haven't said the treaty will be bad. The organisations that haven't voiced any opinion on the treaty are irrelevant.


1/ But it's been explained here 1,596,682,383,947,349,283,294,349,394,587,183 times (give or take) and the reasoning makes perfect sense .


2/They don't give a crap about voting weights,

1/ Are you saying the reason makes perfect sense to you? We've been given reassurances by our government on some issues. These reassurances won't be printed on the ballot paper and so are not conditional if they fall through. I asked why we're voting again so soon. Not why we're voting again.


2/ I'm a voter and I do give a crap about voting weights. So should you!
This is the essence of the treaty, and you say these companies couldn't give a crap about it. Maybe we shouldn't be listening to them so.

panda100

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

No rap on knuckles for anyone yet??

Id be Socialist party.

Judgement Day

I'm not a member of any political party - never have been - but the nearest group would have to be the United Kingdom Independence Party although I wouldn't support a complete withdrawal from the EU.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

1/ Are you saying the reason makes perfect sense to you? We've been given reassurances by our government on some issues. These reassurances won't be printed on the ballot paper and so are not conditional if they fall through. I asked why we're voting again so soon. Not why we're voting again.

It makes perfect sense in general. We had issues, they were addressed, they asked us again. What difference does the time between votes make?

squod wrote: »

2/ I'm a voter and I do give a crap about voting weights. So should you!
This is the essence of the treaty, and you say these companies couldn't give a crap about it. Maybe we shouldn't be listening to them so.

Our voting weight isn't that big anyway so it dropping a percent or two makes little difference to me. Also a voting weight based on our population is more democratic. Also it's only one of the requirements of double majority voting, the other giving us a weight the same as every other country. And finally I don't see the EU as an adversary that's trying to force things on us, they do everything through negotiation. We might get some stuff we don't want but equally we'll get stuff that we want that Germany doesn't. Our goals aren't so different to theirs that something catastrophic will go against us. They're Europeans, not nazis. And I say that in the knowledge that the important stuff is still unanimous

But besides all that, the only reason I care what businesses are saying is in the context of a vote helping or damaging the economy. There are other issues in the treaty but I get that information elsewhere. People on the no side say voting yes will not help the economy but the people who understand the economy best disagree. I'm going with the experts

PrivateEye

As a pro choice worker, firmly opposed to the far right, I have nothing but disdain for Coir, and have made that known to them any time I've encountered them. If Lisbon falls or if Lisbon passes, they'll still be outside the GPO each and every weekend forcing their religious agenda down peoples throats.

No Voters Against Coir would have been the car sticker of the Referendum for me, pity. Still, always next year.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

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.

I don't like the question but I'll say that I'm groping in some sort of left-wing manner towards some kind of better deal for everyone. That's in general, so not just a better deal for the millionaire developers or the dole scroungers.

Make of that what you will. I don't support neo-cons or terrorists or fundamentalist catholics.

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.

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.

There's been a broad campaign to discredit "no voters" as crazy people living in a bubble inside of some mad hatter's mansion or something. It's very insulting in fact to hear or read from someone saying that there's no sane reason to vote no. Any attempt to have a discussion with these people starts from the premise that "well, there's no reason to vote no anyways". The media bias has to be evident even to the most hardcore "yes" voter.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Ah yeah but it's kinda balanced in one direction is it not ?

Of course it's a legal text that needs a court to interpret it but eh, the EU's all about free economy, finance, foreign investment, corporations. All that stuff. Btw, most people voted no last time ( as you well know).

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Ah yeah but it's kinda balanced in one direction is it not ?

That depends on your perspective. As I've said before, the fact that both the farther left and the farther right dislike the EU equally has always seemed to me a good indicator that it's reasonably balanced.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Of course it's a legal text that needs a court to interpret it but eh, the EU's all about free economy, finance, foreign investment, corporations. All that stuff.

A lot of it being controls on those things. And there's the social Europe aspects, of course, which is why people like ETUC support it. Any claim that the EU is some kind of right-wing machine has to cross the rather thorny issue that most of our progressive legislation comes form it.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Btw, most people voted no last time ( as you well know).

If only that's what I had been referring to, I'm sure such a rebuke would be well deserved. Luckily for my ego, it wasn't. I was, instead, referring to the fact that most people in Europe vote for broadly centrist parties - there are differences both from country to country and from time to time in the general public's preference for favouring the freedom of the market over the rights of workers, but broadly, since the advent of universal suffrage in Europe, the push has been towards the centre. Neither farther-right nor farther-left groups are reliably favoured by more than a small proportion of the population in most European countries most of the time, and for good reason, since they tend to substitute ideology for thought, and are almost uniformly unable to see pragmatic compromise as anything other than a deal with the devil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's been a broad campaign to discredit "no voters" as crazy people living in a bubble inside of some mad hatter's mansion or something.

I'm sorry but I think many No campaigners have discredited themselves. Sure some people have poked fun but only after these No campaigners hung themselves out to dry. The 'vote Yes to Lisbon and the EU will eat your babies' kinda nonsense that was been paraded out over and over speaks for itself.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It's very insulting in fact to hear or read from someone saying that there's no sane reason to vote no. Any attempt to have a discussion with these people starts from the premise that "well, there's no reason to vote no anyways".

I'm not trying to insult you but maybe there isn't any majorly sane reason to vote No, not that I've seen anyway. The No campaigns depiction of the EU is like no EU I've ever come across in any reality. Most of the reasons I've seen to vote No, from the more rational No voters, have revolved around a perceived loss of 'sovereignty'. Personally I think this loss of sovereignty idea is nonsense, no small export led country can have this kind of sovereignty to begin with.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The media bias has to be evident even to the most hardcore "yes" voter.

I think you're mistaking the media not agreeing with you as bias. Maybe you're just simply wrong in what you believe.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Of course it's a legal text that needs a court to interpret it...

Nope, no legal document has ever needed a court to interpret it, not even the Irish constitution, not ever. Oh wait...
That said I've read it myself and it's not generally difficult to understand, if I can do it anyone can.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

...the EU's all about free economy, finance, foreign investment, corporations. All that stuff.

You must have forgotten all that workers rights legislation, and all the equal rights legislation... I could go on but you get the point.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Btw, most people voted no last time ( as you well know).

Ah you must have 'forgotten' that 28% of the electorate voted No the last time. And the largest percentage of them for reasons that are not in the treaty. So not even close to 'most people', as you should well know.


You talk about media bias and yet repeat that "most people voted no last time" when given the length of time you've been posting here there should be no way you'd make that mistake. I've seen a majority of No campaigners play footloose and fancy free with the truth and then continually claim bias against them, then not see the really ironic nature of what they're doing.

OldJay

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's been a broad campaign to discredit "no voters" as crazy people living in a bubble inside of some mad hatter's mansion or something

There's no broad campaign at all. The "no voters" (in particular, whoever this mysterious Cóir are) are doing this to themselves. Misleading and wildly incorrect assertions on the tenets of the Treaty via emotional blackmail (otherwise known as LIES) on issues that are not affected by it are basically turning around and biting them on the ass. This will be reflected in the final voting tallies.

The latest set of posters littering my view as I drive down the quays this morning shows them in their true light. Hopefully other people will also recognise the detrimental effects of so-called "pro-life" Catholic hardliners wanting to hijack a constitutional issue that bears no effect on their main agenda.

I would like to know who funds Cóir and whether or not taxpayer money of any kind is being siphoned into that organisation in any way.

Sam Vimes

meglome wrote: »

I think you're mistaking the media not agreeing with you as bias. Maybe you're just simply wrong in what you believe.

Absolutely. Any time I hear that I think of creationists accusing people of bias and trying to get a 10000 year old earth taught as an equally valid theory to evolution.

In fact I think in some cases they're worse than creationists because evolution is a difficult concept and I can see why someone wouldn't understand it but when someone says that the guarantees aren't legally binding and you show them the sentence that says they are.......and a ten page thread of ridiculous "what if's" follows it becomes very difficult not to dismiss them the same way we do creationists.

And if we do we get accused of a campaign to discredit no voters and I die a little inside

rowlandbrowner

Justind wrote: »

There's no broad campaign at all. The "no voters" (in particular, whoever this mysterious Cóir are) are doing this to themselves. Misleading and wildly incorrect assertions on the tenets of the Treaty via emotional blackmail (otherwise known as LIES) on issues that are not affected by it are basically turning around and biting them on the ass. This will be reflected in the final voting tallies.

The two Political Parties advocating a no vote are not comparable to Coir, The Socialist Party and Sinn Fein contain elected Politian’s representing a large number of people, I would argue that they have led campaigns rooted in fact and genuine opposition to Lisbon, and I’ll be honest, the EU in general.

In both cases it boils down to ideological differences. You don’t agree, but that doesn’t discredit valid arguments.

Also, I would think Coir probably applauded Fianna Fail’s blasphemy law. You wouldn’t get that under a Socialist government, but you’d probably get pro-choice abortion legislation.

Some elements on the Yes side have plenty more in common with Coir (on other matters).
Worth nothing as you and others have tried to incorporate them with the aforementioned groups into some imagined collective No campaign.

Sam Vimes

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

The two Political Parties advocating a no vote are not comparable to Coir, The Socialist Party and Sinn Fein contain elected Politian’s representing a large number of people, I would argue that they have led campaigns rooted in fact and genuine opposition to Lisbon, and I’ll be honest, the EU in general.

In both cases it boils down to ideological differences. You don’t agree, but that doesn’t discredit valid arguments.

No disagreeing does not discredit arguments but lying does. Joe higgins took an article of the treaty, chopped half of it out change its meaning to something negative and posted it on his website. Sinn Fein and I think the socialists too claim that a ECJ ruling that Latvian workers in Sweden could be paid Lativan wages could effect us after Lisbon, ignoring the facts that Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage so the same ruling could not be made here and, most importantly, this has already happened and has nothing to do with the treaty.

Also, Sinn Fein have posters up everywhere saying Lisbon will require more military spending in contradiction to this part of the legally binding guarantees we got from the EU:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

OldJay

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

In both cases it boils down to ideological differences. You don’t agree, but that doesn’t discredit valid arguments

Claiming that Ireland's neutrality is under threat by the Lisbon Treaty when it clearly isn't . . . discredits their (Coir, Sinn Fein and 'No' Higgins) arguments.

Claiming that Ireland will be open to national service (conscription) as a result of Treaty ratification when it clearly won't . . . discredits their (Coir, Sinn Fein and 'No' Higgins) arguments.

Claiming that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty yields the way for legalised abortion and euthanasia when it clearly doesn't . . . discredits their (Cóir) arguments.

Alarmist "questions" on minimum wage when the answer (to the contrary of its suggestive innuendo) is entirely obvious . . . discredits their (Cóir) arguments.

All the proponents of the above subject matter have cherry picked to suit their argument without giving the full story. When challenged on this, they just resort to "I don't trust the guarantees".

It is no wonder they're fighting a losing battle. They simply bear next to nil credibility. They basically hope that their support will, if not already adherent to party/idealogical loyalty, display the usual political apathy when something being done is required and and going on their word alone, not bother said arse actually reading up on the list of lies above.

rowlandbrowner

regarding Higgins supposed misqouatation....

An error was made on his website, and it’s worth noting, that Blair Horan misquoted it too in the letter that brought it to light. Higgins has quoted this article correctly on TV, radio and news articles before and since, its correct wording does suggest that workers rights do have limitations, nobody from the yes side has addressed this concern directly.


....and the question of military spending as it releates to Lisbon.

Lisbon is the first time in an EU Treaty the EU armaments industry is given official status through the role of the European Defence Agency (EDA).

The shortest argument of many I can give, is, why would citizens of a neutral country support an industry (by voting for Lisbon) that contributes to global arms sales?

Sam Vimes

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

regarding Higgins supposed misqouatation....

An error was made on his website, and it’s worth noting, that Blair Horan misquoted it too in the letter that brought it to light. Higgins has quoted this article correctly on TV, radio and news articles before and since, its correct wording does suggest that workers rights do have limitations, nobody from the yes side has addressed this concern directly.

I know they have addressed it because I addressed it in this thread. This is the claim from the socialist website:

It’s in The Treaty – Lisbon Copperfastens ‘Right’ of Business To Exploit Workers!

Joe Higgins MEP explained:

"Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would give the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal standing as the EU Treaties. This is said to be a big step forward which will have a major effect on improving workers’ rights. This is absolutely false.

"We show today that, in fact, to ratify Lisbon would copperfasten the ‘right’ of business to exploit migrant workers and enforce wages and conditions away inferior to accepted norms in particular Member States of the European Union.

"This happens because the Lisbon Treaty institutionalises the rulings of the European Court of Justice which endorsed the action of foreign contractors in importing workers from one Member State to another and seriously breaching the agreed rates of pay and various protections for such workers either agreed in trade union/employer agreements or imposed by local or national authorities.

"Some of the key cases where these judgements were handed down were: Vaxholm/Laval in Sweden 2004, Ruffert in Germany in 2008, and Luxembourg in 2008.

"Should the abuses involved in these cases, and endorsed by the ECJ, become general it would drive down the wages and conditions of all workers in a disastrous ‘race to the bottom.’

My response:

1. Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage so the same ruling could not be made here
2. This has already happened and has nothing to do with the treaty. The word 'copperfastens' is simply bullsh!t

They know this. It has been pointed out to them every time I have heard it mentioned. They continue to say it. They are lying.

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

....and the question of military spending as it releates to Lisbon.

Lisbon is the first time in an EU Treaty the EU armaments industry is given official status through the role of the European Defence Agency (EDA).

The shortest argument of many I can give, is, why would citizens of a neutral country support an industry (by voting for Lisbon) that contributes to global arms sales?

And the shortest one I can give is the one I already gave

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

Lisbon does not mean more military spending. Other countries might choose to spend more but that is none of our business

StealthRolex

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

The shortest argument of many I can give, is, why would citizens of a neutral country support an industry (by voting for Lisbon) that contributes to global arms sales?

That would be the Jobs and Recovery element of the Treaty

ShooterSF

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

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.

Some of the UKIP's official ideas interested me. Though I have been told that theres more BNP to them than they admit. I haven't taken the time to associate problems with Lisbon to different parties so I'm not sure which share my claims.
If you are looking to see what way I lean I would consider myself liberal with nationalist parts thrown in. I'm pro-abortion and atheist and a man so some of that list you can scratch off easier if it helps.