What the Mainlanders are saying

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

"Our list of allies grows thin, Gandalf".

Hardly, we'll turn this thing around.

I don't think we will. I think the fact that the Germans are making soothing noises is more important.

Also, I see that the French have managed to find extra reserves of cheek, and blame the European Commission for the No vote by "not addressing citizens' concerns about rising oil and food prices". The Commission has privately rejected this, arguing that French officials had caused more problems during the campaign by being outspoken about corporate tax and threatening to punish Ireland for a No vote.

Sounds like we've started a good ol' fight ibis.
How do you interpret the German soothing noises ?

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

"Our list of allies grows thin, Gandalf".

Hardly, we'll turn this thing around.

I don't think we will. I think the fact that the Germans are making soothing noises is more important.

The Germans are our minions, they will do as we command. We are Irish, we have the gift of the gab.

Dunno ibis, some remarkable comments coming out the last couple of days. Of course I'm somewhat reliant on what the net says but...

Greek opposition calls for referendum

Quote :

The calls for referendum will put the implementation of the parliament's decision to ratify the treaty on hold.

Maltese start to get worried

Quote :

As a small member state, we (Malta) must insist on this as unanimity is
the guarantee provided by the EU so that small- and medium-sized
countries can safeguard their interests," he [the Maltese PM] said.

Czech PM says ratification is over

Quote :

Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek (ODS) said on Friday he considers the Czech ratification process discontinued.

Rather confused Cypriot noises

(though it does say ratification to go ahead)

Quote :

Asked about ruling AKEL, which said the Irish vote had vindicated the
party’s position on the Lisbon Treaty, Garoyian said AKEL had not yet
formulated a final position.

And I'm not sure anyone in the UK wants it, think all of the papers bar one has used the word traitor in the same sentence as Brown so far... (exaggeration alert).

To an extent I do agree with you, until one of the core six, Spain UK or Poland say no, then it will go on. I'm just not sure how healthy that is.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Sounds like we've started a good ol' fight ibis.
How do you interpret the German soothing noises ?

Well, it's the usual trajectory for an EU crisis. Everyone is predictably outraged, makes outraged hardline noises - that's what we might consider the initial 'national' reaction, where the people in charge of countries like France say "WTF? How dare they!" etc - and then the "EU" response kicks in and people start saying things like "We are all Irish - it is a European issue and not an Irish issue", as Kouchner said today.

Well thats Brown put in his place!

Claygate says Nein

Financial Times:

Dublin offered pledges to save EU treaty

Quote :

Ireland will be offered additional guarantees of its sovereignty – possibly in areas such as taxation, military policy and family law – under an emergency plan to save the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, government ministers and EU officials said on Monday.

They said the plan, still in its early planning stages, would involve no changes to the treaty’s text, because all governments that have approved Lisbon would then have to ratify the altered document – a process regarded as virtually certain to fail, especially in the UK.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Financial Times:

Dublin offered pledges to save EU treaty

Quote :

Ireland will be offered additional guarantees of its sovereignty – possibly in areas such as taxation, military policy and family law – under an emergency plan to save the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, government ministers and EU officials said on Monday.

They said the plan, still in its early planning stages, would involve no changes to the treaty’s text, because all governments that have approved Lisbon would then have to ratify the altered document – a process regarded as virtually certain to fail, especially in the UK.

If we get enough concessions like that, it would be enough to split the No side to the extent that a new improved Lisbon would pass. If some sectional interests like Cóir and Libertas can be given guarantees, their bloc of support could swing the referendum back in the Yes direction.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Financial Times:

Dublin offered pledges to save EU treaty

Quote :

Ireland will be offered additional guarantees of its sovereignty – possibly in areas such as taxation, military policy and family law – under an emergency plan to save the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, government ministers and EU officials said on Monday.

They said the plan, still in its early planning stages, would involve no changes to the treaty’s text, because all governments that have approved Lisbon would then have to ratify the altered document – a process regarded as virtually certain to fail, especially in the UK.

If we get enough concessions like that, it would be enough to split the No side to the extent that a new improved Lisbon would pass. If some sectional interests like Cóir and Libertas can be given guarantees, their bloc of support could swing the referendum back in the Yes direction.

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

I think they put that one to bed. Everytime Mary Lou opened her mouth she qualified what she was going to say with "We are not anti-Europe but..".

Anybody read Fintan O'Droole this morning?

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

I think they put that one to bed. Everytime Mary Lou opened her mouth she qualified what she was going to say with "We are not anti-Europe but..".

Well, that's certainly what she said. I presume, then, that SF's opposition to every other EU treaty was...what, accidental? Playful? All in our heads?

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

I think they put that one to bed. Everytime Mary Lou opened her mouth she qualified what she was going to say with "We are not anti-Europe but..".

Well, that's certainly what she said. I presume, then, that SF's opposition to every other EU treaty was...what, accidental? Playful? All in our heads?

Inda, Bowman and Mickey Marty tried the same line on Q and A and didn't get too far........bitch-slapped would be the term that comes to mind

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

That's an outrageous claim. SF are not anti-Eu, they are anti Lisbon Treaty.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

I think they put that one to bed. Everytime Mary Lou opened her mouth she qualified what she was going to say with "We are not anti-Europe but..".

Well, that's certainly what she said. I presume, then, that SF's opposition to every other EU treaty was...what, accidental? Playful? All in our heads?

Inda, Bowman and Mickey Marty tried the same line on Q and A and didn't get too far........bitch-slapped would be the term that comes to mind

Which proves...what, exactly?

Aragon wrote:

That's an outrageous claim. SF are not anti-Eu, they are anti Lisbon Treaty.

And anti-Nice Treaty, and anti-Amsterdam Treaty, and anti-Maastricht Treaty, and anti-SEA, and anti-accession...

Look, if you'd opposed me first meeting a girl, opposed my dating her, opposed my becoming her boyfriend, opposed us getting engaged, and opposed us getting married, then what on earth would entitle you to describe yourself as not opposed to the girl?

Actually, that makes it obvious that there is one way you can make that claim - the traditional "it's nothing personal, I think she's a fine girl, but I just think you ought to be single for your own good" - in other words, that SF are not opposed to the EU per se, but to Ireland's involvement with it.

Do SF, the SWP and People Before Profit not all fit into the same category of people who oppose the main thrust of the EU project because it is not built around a hard-core socialist model, being an ideology that they are all committed to?

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

The old Dem-Lefters probaby were.

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

The old Dem-Lefters probaby were.

Seems like that.But was de Rossa not unswerving in his support, going as far as supporting a motion ignoring the result before the vote took place?

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

The old Dem-Lefters probaby were.

Seems like that.But was de Rossa not unswerving in his support?

de Rossa was always the thinker.

Ibis wrote:

Look, if you'd opposed me first meeting a girl, opposed my dating her, opposed my becoming her boyfriend, opposed us getting engaged, and opposed us getting married, then what on earth would entitle you to describe yourself as not opposed to the girl?

Actually, that makes it obvious that there is one way you can make that claim - the traditional "it's nothing personal, I think she's a fine girl, but I just think you ought to be single for your own good" - in other words, that SF are not opposed to the EU per se, but to Ireland's involvement with it.

You may like to think that metaphor/analogy is a good one Ibis but it is in fact superficial, facetious and of course unrelated to anything sensible or factual. Supporting the idea of the EU is one thing, as you well know. Accepting its proposals for how it should work, is another entirely. I don't believe that you don't know that though you endlessly like to fudge and deny democratically expressed and legitimate objection. It's legitimate to disagree with the authoritarian tendencies of the EU - something you support and push at every opportunity as though the only thing that matters is for there to be unthinking obedience to all that is decreed and handed down to us from on high. Again, your allegation that Sinn Fein is 'anti EU' is completley untrue - a wilful distortion of their verifiable policies and commitments.

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

The old Dem-Lefters probaby were.

Seems like that.But was de Rossa not unswerving in his support?

de Rossa was always the thinker.

Watch your spelling there Ibis. One superfluous letter

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

Well, SF got a load more airtime by being on the No side, compared to if they had been on the Yes side. Labour got very little airtime, having been squeezed out of the Yes airtime by FF+FG and even IBEC.

The Labour party were not against it all along. Sure, some were, as with all parties. I was at the conference last November where it was voted to support the treaty.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

Well, SF got a load more airtime by being on the No side, compared to if they had been on the Yes side. Labour got very little airtime, having been squeezed out of the Yes airtime by FF+FG and even IBEC.

The Labour party were not against it all along. Sure, some were, as with all parties. I was at the conference last November where it was voted to support the treaty.

I agree that Labour were squeezed in the media coverage but among those that were to be heard I didn't discern many of them passionately endorsing the treaty. They did seem to get a disproportionate amount of coverage in recent years but since the General Election, rte in particular seem to believe that only FF and FG exist.