The Lisbon Treaty is not a vote on Europe

Hydrosylator

What do people think of the way in which, in the yes campaign, support for Europe and support for the Lisbon Treaty are equated?

What do people think of the way in which support for the EU and support for the current government of the EU have been equated?

Would it be as easy to get away with equating the support of the current FF/Green coalition here with support for Ireland, or even patriotism?

I ask this question as someone who is sick of hearing the "anti-Europe" label stuck onto individuals and organisations who don't support Lisbon. It's illogical.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Seems both sides of the discussion are incapable of objective debate...

BlitzKrieg

I ask this question as someone who is sick of hearing the "anti-Europe" label stuck onto individuals and organisations who don't support Lisbon. It's illogical.

On the individuals yes it can be illogical.

but on organisations which have repeatable voted no to every treaty, not so illogical, this does apply to substantial number of the main no to lisbon organisations (Coir, people's movement, Sinn Fein, Socialist party etc)

Hydrosylator

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On the individuals yes it can be illogical.

but on organisations which have repeatable voted no to every treaty, not so illogical, this does apply to substantial number of the main no to lisbon organisations (Coir, people's movement, Sinn Fein, Socialist party etc)

I'd describe Cóir as anti-secularist(bad) rather than just anti-Europe, which they also seem to be.

The other three have clearly stated disagreements with much of official EU policy, and the current EU government. However, in reading up on it, it becomes apparent that these disagreements come out of their concern for the welfare of EU citizens. They're not trying to kill the EU, they're trying to make it work the right way, as they see it.

oscarBravo

Hydrosylator wrote: »

They're not trying to kill the EU, they're trying to make it work the right way, as they see it.

That's just a re-hash of the old "I'm not opposed to a hypothetical EU, I'm just opposed to the actual EU that currently exists" argument.

There's only one EU. Someone who opposed us joining it, and has opposed our ratification of every EU treaty since accession, has an uphill struggle to convince me that they're pro-EU.

BlitzKrieg

found it!

there was a table done on the voting pattern of a number of no organisations.

see if you notice a trend

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740

Hydrosylator

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's just a re-hash of the old "I'm not opposed to a hypothetical EU, I'm just opposed to the actual EU that currently exists" argument.

There's only one EU. Someone who opposed us joining it, and has opposed our ratification of every EU treaty since accession, has an uphill struggle to convince me that they're pro-EU.

That's fair. With regard to Sinn Féin.

The Socialist Party came into being in 1997.
I can't find evidence of People's Movement existing more than five years.

Hydrosylator

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

found it!

there was a table done on the voting pattern of a number of no organisations.

see if you notice a trend

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740

Sorry, but that table's a lie.
The Socialist Party started in 1997.
Although they came out of militant, who were kicked out of Labour in 1989.
That's still 17 years to late to have opposed accession.
The Worker's Party started in 1982.

I can't take that **** seriously, and neither should you.

BlitzKrieg

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Sorry, but that table's a lie.
The Socialist Party started in 1997.
The Worker's Party started in 1982.

I can't take that **** seriously, and neither should you.

socialist party

Formerly known as Militant Labour, then Militant Tendency, it adopted the name The Socialist Party in 1996. Like many other organisations affiliated to the CWI, from their foundation until the 1980s members of the organisation practiced entryism in the Irish Labour Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Ireland%29

and the worker's party has an even longer history segment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Ireland



On the table, the only group I would consider removing is PANA because by Amsterdam the movement of the WEU and the EU into a closer relationship had pretty much become official so from that point on it is a position that can be argued.

prinz

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Sorry, but that table's a lie.
The Socialist Party started in 1997.
The Worker's Party started in 1982.
I can't take that **** seriously, and neither should you.

The Socialist Party is an all Ireland party organised throughout the South of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We have been active since the early 1970s, previously known as Militant and Militant Labour we became the Socialist Party in 1997.

http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/about-us.html

A quick name change in 1997 yes, but essentially the same thing.

Edit:- Too slow!

Hydrosylator

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

socialist party




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Ireland%29

and the worker's party has an even longer history segment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Ireland



On the table, the only group I would consider removing is PANA because by Amsterdam the movement of the WEU and the EU into a closer relationship had pretty much become official so from that point on it is a position that can be argued.

Exactly, they were inside the Labour Party. There was no Socialist Party.

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/about-us.html

A quick name change in 1997 yes, but essentially the same thing.

Edit:- Too slow!

How does that change the fact that there was no Socialist Party in 1972?

Daftendirekt

I know it's not necessarily true that all No voters are opposed to Lisbon because they disagree with the EU project, but here's a couple of hypothetical scenarios to explain the situation as I see it.

If the Treaty is rejected again, and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon because we disagree with X, Y and Z aspects of the text for A, B and C reasons' then nobody will be able to infer an anti-EU sentiment. The other member states will probably be little annoyed at having to go back to the drawing board, but armed with this increase in knowledge, we can all get to work on negotiating a deal that the Irish people will be happy with.


If, however, the Treaty is rejected and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon for no particular reason' then the other member states will be left scratching their heads, wondering what exactly it was that was wrong with the Treaty. They can't just draft a new Treaty, since they won't know what was wrong with the last one. Since no suggestions have been put forth about how to address the Irish people's concerns, it's easy to see how a No to Lisbon might be interpreted in this scenario, as a No to the EU.

The other member states will have to draft a new reform treaty (since they actually want the changes proposed in Lisbon), but this time, they won't have addressed the concerns of the Irish (since they have no idea what those concerns are) and so won't be able to count on ratification by Ireland.


This would definitely call into question Ireland's stance on the EU, not necessarily because the Irish are anti-EU, but because we'd have rejected an important EU Treaty without having any clear reason to do so.

prinz

Hydrosylator wrote: »

How does that change the fact that there was no Socialist Party in 1972?

Because it was the same people Doesn't matter what name they were operating under.

Hydrosylator

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I know it's not necessarily true that all No voters are opposed to Lisbon because they disagree with the EU project, but here's a couple of hypothetical scenarios to explain the situation as I see it.

If the Treaty is rejected again, and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon because we disagree with X, Y and Z aspects of the text for A, B and C reasons' then nobody will be able to infer an anti-EU sentiment. The other member states will probably be little annoyed at having to go back to the drawing board, but armed with this increase in knowledge, we can all get to work on negotiating a deal that the Irish people will be happy with.


If, however, the Treaty is rejected and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon for no particular reason' then the other member states will be left scratching their heads, wondering what exactly it was that was wrong with the Treaty. They can't just draft a new Treaty, since they won't know what was wrong with the last one. Since no suggestions have been put forth about how to address the Irish people's concerns, it's easy to see how a No to Lisbon might be interpreted in this scenario, as a No to the EU.
The other member states will have to draft a new reform treaty (since they actually want the changes proposed in Lisbon), but this time, they won't have addressed the concerns of the Irish (since they have no idea what those concerns are) and so won't be able to count on ratification by Ireland.

This would definitely call into question Ireland's stance on the EU, not necessarily because the Irish are anti-EU, but because we'd have rejected an important EU Treaty without having any clear reason to do so.

I don't know, there's plenty of clear reasons being put forward by the No side, those at www.caeuc.org for example. It's not possible to tell if people vote no for the same reason they want them to, but it never is.

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

Because it was the same people Doesn't matter what name they were operating under.

Name somebody who was in Militant Tendency then who is in the Socialist Party now.

BlitzKrieg

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Name somebody who was in Militant Tendency then who is in the Socialist Party now.

joe higgins?

He returned to Ireland and attended University College Dublin studying English and French. For several years he was a teacher in some of Dublin's inner city schools. While at university he joined the Irish Labour Party and became active in the Militant Tendency, an entryist Trotskyist group that operated within Labour. Throughout his time in the Labour Party he was a strong opponent of coalition politics. He was elected to the Administrative Council of the Labour Party by the membership in the 1980s. In 1989 Higgins was expelled alongside other members of Militant. The group eventually left the party and formed Militant Labour which became the Socialist Party in 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Higgins

Hydrosylator

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

joe higgins?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Higgins

Grand so that's one. Now we can start digging. Now where's the evidence of him, or anyone else in Irish Militant Tendency, opposing accession to the EU?

Hydrosylator

That's funny, when I put [ "militant tendency" accession europe ] into google, the first web page is this thread. It's almost like there's nowhere else online where the two are associated.

BlitzKrieg

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Grand so that's one. Now we can start digging. Now where's the evidence of him, or anyone else in Irish Militant Tendency, opposing accession to the EU?

like you said earlier the socialist party was part of labour before breaking away and in 1972 the two parties to oppose the accension treaty were!!!!

The Third Amendment was the first to be successfully approved by Irish voters in a referendum. It was introduced by the Fianna Fáil government of Jack Lynch but also supported by Fine Gael, the main opposition party, and by employers' and farmers' interest groups. However it was opposed by the Labour Party and Official Sinn Fein and the trade unions. The voting went 1,041,890 (83.1%) in favour and 211,891 (16.9%) against.

Hydrosylator

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

like you said earlier the socialist party was part of labour before breaking away and in 1972 the two parties to oppose the accension treaty were!!!!

Very good, nice work.
So you now agree that it was Labour and not the Socialist Party who opposed accession?

BlitzKrieg

but they were one of the same at the time. As pointed out the current star of the socialist party (joe higgins) and the one leading the charge against lisbon for the socialist party today was a member of the labour party at the time.

If I was to draw a criticism to the table, its that its too simplified when it addressess elements like sinn fein and the worker's party because they have had rocky history of forming and disbanding and breaking into smaller parties.

It might have been better if it was a flow chart starting with just labour and sinn fein and then tracing it through the treaties with notes of what parties broke up and where they went. Or went by personalities (like they do for Patricia Mckenna)

Hydrosylator

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

but they were one of the same at the time. As pointed out the current star of the socialist party (joe higgins) and the one leading the charge against lisbon for the socialist party today was a member of the labour party at the time.

If I was to draw a criticism to the table, its that its too simplified when it addressess elements like sinn fein and the worker's party because they have had rocky history of forming and disbanding and breaking into smaller parties.

It might have been better if it was a flow chart starting with just labour and sinn fein and then tracing it through the treaties with notes of what parties broke up and where they went. Or went by personalities (like they do for Patricia Mckenna)

Well if they were one and the same or not, we've gone way off topic. What I will say is, if all the trade unions opposed the Third Amendment, it's reasonable to assume that Militant Labour would have been on the same side as them.

Coming back to the topic, and the present day, what are your feelings on the question of Europe and Lisbon. Do you, personally, believe that the interest of European citizens always coincides with the wishes of the EU government?
I know you say it does on the issue of Lisbon, and that's cool.

If we were presented with another Treaty, and you saw obvious ways in which it would make life easier for all the wrong people, could you oppose it without being anti-Europe?

Hydrosylator

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's just a re-hash of the old "I'm not opposed to a hypothetical EU, I'm just opposed to the actual EU that currently exists" argument.

There's only one EU. Someone who opposed us joining it, and has opposed our ratification of every EU treaty since accession, has an uphill struggle to convince me that they're pro-EU.

Do you see a difference between the interests of the EU government and the interests of the people of Europe?

Tipsy Mac

Would be interesting if any other country in the EU "allowed" their people the privilage of voting on ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

thusspakeblixa

Regarding the table of "No" voting patterns (this one) - just because an organisation advocates a no vote, does that make them wrong?

Saying that the no side are just a bunch of people who are only telling you to vote no for the sake of it is like me saying "FF/FG/LAB are telling you to vote yes for the sake of it, sure they always say yes."

Of course neither side are just saying no/yes for the sake of it, there are other reasons behind their stance. Those kind of tables like the one seen above in this thread are useless in my view. They mean nothing in real terms, unless you want to statistically analyse voting patterns without making a condescending judgement.

And please leave out the condescending judgements. People in many of the organisations advocating a "No" vote do have brains you know.

bonkey

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Sorry, but that table's a lie.

While I note that you refer to the table, rather than the person who compiled it, nor the people referring to it, I would point out the charter's position on accusations of lying.

There is a large divide between saying the table is incorrect, miselading or wrong and saying that the table is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Scofflaw

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Regarding the table of "No" voting patterns (this one) - just because an organisation advocates a no vote, does that make them wrong?

Saying that the no side are just a bunch of people who are only telling you to vote no for the sake of it is like me saying "FF/FG/LAB are telling you to vote yes for the sake of it, sure they always say yes."

Of course neither side are just saying no/yes for the sake of it, there are other reasons behind their stance. Those kind of tables like the one seen above in this thread are useless in my view. They mean nothing in real terms, unless you want to statistically analyse voting patterns without making a condescending judgement.

And please leave out the condescending judgements. People in many of the organisations advocating a "No" vote do have brains you know.

I've never suggested that any No organisation (or sub-organisation, or spinoff) is either devoid of brains or opposing EU treaties just for the sake of it. However, if an organisation invariably opposes EU treaties, but states different reasons every time, then it's clear that the reasons they state for opposing the treaty are not directly related to the real reason they oppose the treaty - in other words, that it's a case of say No, then find reasons.

In the case of many No organisations, the reason behind the reasons is clearly 'sacred sovereignty' - and the reason that that's not the reason stated in public is that (a) it doesn't interest the general public very much, and (b) you can't hold sovereignty sacred and not oppose the EU itself, because the EU as it stands (and the EC before it) both involve an element of supranational organisation, which is anathema to sacred sovereignty.

COIR, on the other hand, oppose EU treaties because Ireland's relationship with the EU has been marked by a climb out of the dark ages they find comfortable. Unfortunately, again, most people are quite happy with the results of that climb (although nearly everyone has some niggle or other, which is what keeps COIR in business).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hydrosylator

bonkey wrote: »

While I note that you refer to the table, rather than the person who compiled it, nor the people referring to it, I would point out the charter's position on accusations of lying.

There is a large divide between saying the table is incorrect, miselading or wrong and saying that the table is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Noted

BlitzKrieg

Do you, personally, believe that the interest of European citizens always coincides with the wishes of the EU government?

I would obviously say no not all the time, that would be why we have general elections and european elections. I would even raise an eyebrow at the term *EU government* personnaly when I consider how much the legaslation process ebbs and flow's between directly elected officials of the national governments, directly elected officials of the european parliament and the officials of the European Union as selected by the heads of state of each member state.

At the moment I expect centre right lesgislative to come from the EU because the national governments of the EU at the moment are predomiantly right wing, much like the services directive we were talking about earlier. Which is why to ensure my voice is somewhat protected I have voted left in the european elections. So far that has paid of in the same case of the services directive.

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, if an organisation invariably opposes EU treaties, but states different reasons every time, then it's clear that the reasons they state for opposing the treaty are not directly related to the real reason they oppose the treaty - in other words, that it's a case of say No, then find reasons.

Would it not be unusual to have the same problems with different treaties?

I don't see the logic behind the "sacred sovereignty" thing.
It certainly doesn't work for any of the socialist organisations, all of whom are internationalist by default. Supranational organisation is part and parcel of socialism. The First International predates the EU by over 80 years.

I agree with you on Cóir.