Labour kick off “YES” to Lisbon II Campaign
Read more about: Europe, Labour Party, Lisbon Treaty 
Labour launched their 2nd Lisbon campaign today, making a start to a summer where all and sundry from across the Irish political spectrum will tell us stories on why we should vote yes for this 2nd treaty. And boy will they be stories. We can see concoctions worthy of the greatest Irish Seanachaí and on par with the legends of the Ennis by-pass “fairy tree”. Dublin MEP Proinsias De Rossa (Labour) says: “Irish businesses will be able to apply directly to the European Investment Bank for funding rather than going through Irish banks if the Lisbon referendum is passed”.
A quick look in the EIB’s website will show one clearly that this is already the case. Under the heading “how to apply for a loan” it states quite simply:
“No special formalities are involved for the submission of applications to the EIB for individual loans. Project promoters are required simply to provide the Bank’s Operations Directorate with a detailed description of their capital investment together with the prospective financing arrangements”.
As for who is eligible to apply?
“Individual loans (direct loans) are granted to projects where the total investment cost exceeds EUR 25 million (EUR 10 million in the case of ACP). The EIB may finance a maximum of 50% of the total cost of any project.Individual loans are available to promoters in both the public and private sectors, including banks.”
De Rossa goes on to say that “The European Investment Bank has already provided €350 million to Irish banks to lend to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) “but businesses still cannot get funds from banks”.
A quick check with the EIB’s website shows that loans for Ulster Bank, AIB & BOI totaling €300m were signed on the 24th & 25th of March this year. The assertion that SME’s cannot get funds from banks has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. It has everything to do with the fact that the Irish banking industry has collectively committed financial seppuku through over-exposure to the property market and it’s ugly brother, the construction industry. They are hoarding every penny they can get their hands on hoping to create some sort of safety net for when the shit really hits the fan. Talking about which, it looks like the first turd went flying today.
Anyway, a yes for Lisbon will not make EIB funds any more or less available to Irish SME’s. As was to be expected Labour has kicked off it’s campaign is using exactly the argument that I expect to become prevalent over the next few months: “you lot voted no to Lisbon and look what happened to the economy!”. This is utter and absolute nonsense.
The economic downturn was created in the years before the referendum and that argument is non sequitur if I ever saw one. To see it being dragged out and paraded in public as an argument for Ireland to go running to Brussels to get more of the Euro-dollar is sickening. Stop sucking the euro-titty! We had the fastest growing economy in the world and there is enough of it left to rebuild an economy that is stable, self-supporting and most of all build around companies that will not run to the next low-cost country when labour costs increase.
But let’s ignore all the detailed, drawn-out arguments that I can put forward proving the pro-Lisbon campaigners categorically wrong. There really is only one : we already said no! That’s right, you had the democratic process, you ran your campaign, you held a referendum and you lost! End of story.
Now the fact that the Irish government has decided to ignore democratic process by running a 2nd referendum should be a clear sign of what awaits us if the Lisbon treaty is ratified. Now democracy is not a something that was recently made up by us anti-Lisbon malcontents to suit our argument. Democracy has been around since sometime around 508BC. The Irish constitution, on which our state is built, subscribes to this form of government. This means that when a referendum is held that the majority vote rules. Well the majority voted “NO”.
But oh no, Brian Cowen (no great proponent of freedom of expression) and his group of intellectual knuckledraggers, Labour included, have gone belly-crawling to Brussels and have come back to the Irish people with a number of “legal guarantees”. Well let me explain something; these so-called guarantees are not worth the paper they’re written on. If they were really legally binding they would de-facto change the whole treaty requiring it to be re-ratified by all EU member states. Most of which now that you mention it, never put this treaty to their people in a referendum. Convenient n’est pas?
So in short, we have a treaty that is already an almost carbon copy of a previously defeated treaty (remember Nice?), that most European citizens did not get a chance to vote on, whats-more that Ireland voted NO on, and now they want us to vote again based on a bundle of sketchy, no-good “guarantees”? No thanks, Mr Gilmore.
I have trouble with the argument that running a referendum twice is bad for Democracy. First, the box with “No” beside it is still printed on the ballot paper. Second, I have doubts about the efficacy of any pressure created by running a second referendum. I find it hard to believe that somebody who’s objections to the last vote were the fear of conscription or abortion can be “pressured” into voting for these things. There’s also the countervailing pressure to vote no in the name of democracy, like that coming from the above poster. Third, there seems to be a sense that quite a lot of people would like to vote again. Given that a great deal of the arguments put forward by the No campaign were baseless, that’s not surprising (the Yes side had some crap ones too, but they didn’t stick.)
As for the legal guarantees, the reason they don’t change the Treaty is because they’re built to address concerns never raised by the Treaty. They’re purpose is simply to make it more comprehensible. It’s easier to tell somebody worried about abortion to read a twenty word Article in the (legally binding) Protocol than a hundred page Treaty in its entirety.
Brendan,
At no point did I say that holding a 2nd referendum is bad for democracy. What I *do* say however is that it show a blatant disrespect for the democratic process. The whole purpose of a referendum is to circumvent the whole “elected representatives” system and ask the people directly. It’s something that is included in the Irish constitution. The decision to not accept the outcome and decide that the Irish people need to vote on the same issue again is just something that is unacceptable.
Whatsmore, the Irish government insistence that all issues raised by the No-campaign have been addressed illustrates their lack of understanding of the issue or the Irish people. A substantial percentage of the Irish electorate voted no because they did had issues related to abortion, neutrality or taxation. They voted no, because they had issues with the opacity and duplicity of the treaty and quite simply because they had no faith (or trust) in the bureaucratic apparatus that would govern the EU.
A few flimsy guarantees addressing some non-issues will hopefully not change the electorates opinion.
As for these “legal guarantees” it is debatable whether or not they change the actual treaty. I think they do, however I am no legal professional and don’t have a degree in EU law. What I do know however is that if they are not legally binding guarantees (and this will only become clear if the treaty is fully ratified) that the only recourse left to the Irish people is to take the matter to the European High Court. The issue there is that this court operates on Napoleonic law instead of the common law system found in Ireland. The Napoleonic system of law tends to be much more autocratic and totalitarian. The judges presiding over this court are more likely than not to rule against these silly “guarantees”.
Going to keep this short as I don’t have a huge amount of opinion on the matter if I’m honest. Simply put I *don’t* think it shows disrespect for the democratic process. The first referendum was voted down because of certain issues and the government are now presenting the public with an amended referendum where they say that certain legal guarantees are now set in stone by the EU that address at least the majority of those issues that led to the NO vote.
Although I voted YES the first time around, when I got this through the letter-box, I found it quite reassuring: http://niallok.com/img/lisbon2.png
Niall,
But one of my points is that those so-called guarantees are anything but binding or “set in stone”.
They are like the rest of the Lisbon treaty; easily revokable.
I dunno… as I say, I’m no expert on it and I don’t have a huge amount of opinion on it, but the leaflet that came in the door did use the word “guarantees”. I never had a problem with the treaty in the first place, mind you, – voted YES the first time around and most likely will do so again unless something huge convinces me otherwise (which I seriously can’t see happening).
I think it would be fair to say that many people voted “no” on the first treaty for reasons completely unrelated to aspects of the treaty. The Irish Farmers Association in particular stands out in my mind as pretty much putting their vote up for sale to the government.
Totally agree with Evert that a 2nd referendum show a blatant disrespect for the democratic process AND a lack of understanding of the issues the treaty held for the Irish people.
Also agree that, from what I understand of it, the changes do not make this a treaty now worth voting Yes to. I will be voting No again.
Unfortunately I think, as Evert also alludes to, many may now be scaremongered into voting yes.
Yeah, I hear there’s a lot of that going around at the moment!
as this is politics I won’t be posting a link to my website on this one, I prefer to keep my own political view separate from my business.
however… here they are:
I can’t vote on an Irish Referendum because I don’t hold an Irish passport, although I could if I went through the application process.. I’ve been living in Dublin 8 years, and Belfast & Northern Ireland before that.
So the first time the treaty was discussed not one politician gave me a clear outline of what the treaty was about.
I read the pamphlet and I read a section which said that in certain circumstance the death penalty was permissible. I’m a pacifist. So I fundamentally disagree with this.
Therefore I’d vote no.
My MAIN contention with this treaty though is that it still hasn’t been clearly outlined what exactly it means. And this example is just another piece of misinformation that the politicians are spouting.
Do I have too high expectations? I expect that the leaders of this country to be honest & have integrity, I also expect them to provide accurate information to the people of Ireland so that they can make informed choices about legislation which effects their country. (I know, I know you can stop laughing now at the riduculousness of my expectations!)
I am very close to going on a rant and listing all the things I hate about politics in Ireland, but I will contain myself…
If the reason behind bringing it to the people a second time is due to the misinformation then this hasn’t been addressed.
If it is to change the treaty- this also hasn’t been addressed.
Therefore, in twitter speak I’d class this as a #fail monumental- and a double one at that!
And please don’t get me started with how they’re mis-managing the economy!!!!!
Voting has nothing to do with having a passport and everything to do with being an Irish citizen. If you were born in Ireland or either of your parents were, you’re a citizen and all you have to do is to go to your local city/county council and sign on the register of electors. In the event they ask you for identification a birth cert along a form of photographic id should do.
The European Union has consistently opposed the death penalty in all circumstances and its Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms contains the following provision:
The Referendum Commission are an independent body set under statute to give the electorate balanced and informed analysis on Constitutional Amendment. Their website on the Lisbon Treaty is here.
If you vote “yes” you will be by stealth condemning 560`000`000 people to an Un-Democratic fate of which we all will resigned to.
Although you will be voting in “principle” to an amendment of which the EU is wise too following the rejection of the first vote, it will appeal more to the first round “No” voters as your “concerns” will be addressed.
What you are being presented is more of a glossy version which appeals specifically to you the Irish voter.
The treaty is exactly the same and although quite a read I suggest you look through the smoke and mirrors for it is quite scary and far from representative let alone “democratic”.
Voting has nothing to do with having a passport and everything to do with being an Irish citizen. If you were born in Ireland or either of your parents were, you’re a citizen and all you have to do is to go to your local city/county council and sign on the register of electors. In the event they ask you for identification a birth cert along a form of photographic id, should do.
The European Union has consistently opposed the death penalty in all circumstances and its Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms contains the following provision:
The Referendum Commission is an independent body set under statute to give the public balanced and informed analysis on Constitutional Amendment. Their website on the Lisbon Treaty referendum is at http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie.
I’m confused. I’m pro-choice and like the idea of conscription. Although I’m not sure if these two points are relevant to Lisbon any more due to these guarantees. I also believe that the European Parliament (although very slow) are more competent than the Dáil and transferring powers to the EU is a good thing in my book. So I voted Yes the first time round.
Is there any reason why I shouldn’t vote yes again this time round?