|
Post by guillaume on Aug 19, 2009 17:54:06 GMT
I suggest the wisest way to vote on the Lisbon Treaty is to vote NO again. Even if the European Parliament had indeed made some reserves and accorded some part of the will of some of the Irish electors, I do not think we can trust it, especially according to the abortion issue.
The Irish Government, under the FF rules and Cowen rules, do not bring the catholic agenda as a priority. Its will regarding civil union between homosexuals proves it. The Abortion agenda, under FF leadership, is at stake and is very fragile indeed. The main goal of the FF's government is to bring back the Celtic Tiger on its rails. FF is hammering us with taxes - even on low wages - because FF had too much trust and "faith" on its own rules.
Strategicly, a second campaign is a problem for all the small parties which had spent so much on the first campaign, leading to this massive victory. The money is out. SF has little budget. Libertas spent a lot on the first campaign and abroad. The massive and impressive campaign for the NO vote in 2008 from those parties won't happen again. The government knows it and will profit from it.
This government, under Brian Cowen's leadership, which is increasing unemployment to a massive 10 % - see the queue at you local social welfare for yourself - is now bringing the Irish republic under the European Republic, means proper irish rules will be challenged and - among many - the abortion agenda. It is only a matter of time that the abortion law in this country will be a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Aug 20, 2009 8:32:43 GMT
There are a few observations on Guillaume's contribution.
Firstly, Lisbon is not a matter of faith or morals. Secondly, it spite of all the talk of nearly twenty years, the EU has not yet tried to impose abortion on Ireland, who is now joined by Poland and Malta in pro-life camp, and both these have ratified Lisbon.
Secondly, SF can never be trusted to represent the Catholic interest.
Third, although FF can not be trusted in this respect either, the alternative to FF is a government in which Labour participates. Labour, unlike FF, FG, the Greens and SF, has an explicitly pro-abortion policy. Therefore we should not vote Labour nor for FG who cannot form government without them (this is in respect of general elections only - Presidential, Euro, local, Seanad or even Dail by-elections are different). You see one of the consequences of the defeat of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Amendment in 2002, largely caused by YD and Dana confusing pro-lifers, is that pro-lifers in Ireland are permanently committed to voting FF in general elections until that party adopts a specifically pro-abortion position or until the issue becomes dead when abortion is legalised.
So for the moment, at least, it is either Cowen or abortion.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 20, 2009 10:44:24 GMT
This thread from Politics.ie may be of interest in this context, not least because it picks up how much more serious the situation is than many pro-lifers realise. www.politics.ie/labour/93389-what-labour-party-tds-opposed-abortion-7.htmlBTW, has it occurred to Benedict that we may have a FF-Labour coalition after the next election, similar to the one that enacted various forms of "liberal agenda" legislation in 1992-4. FF in my opinion are wholly untrustworthy, they are only driven by lust for power and would do anything to stay in government if they can get away with it. Being reliant on one party is always a mistake. I think the possibility of an Euro-intervention to legalise abortion does exist and is growing, but the way to handle it is not to pick fights we can't win. I would probably vote Yes to Lisbon if I lived in the SOuth, because I think the economy can't survive without it and because the No vote is simply a protest phenomenon without an alternative agenda for government that has any chance of being enacted. Everything depends on the strength of domestic opposition to abortion and the ability of pro-lifers to make pro-abort politicians pay a price in terms of lost support, and for various reasons (including the incompetence Benedict describes) that ability is pretty close to non-existent. Remember no elected representatives - not even a councillor - turned up at the March for Life. They know what way the wind is blowing, and they don't see any benefit for themselves in taking up the cause.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Aug 20, 2009 19:02:31 GMT
So for the moment, at least, it is either Cowen or abortion. I completely agree that a Government with Labour as a partner should be avoided if at all possible, even if it meant keeping the present crew in power. But the fact is, as Hibernicus says, that a Fianna Fail-Labour coalition is perfectly possible and that, as before, Fianna Fail would probably give Labour free rein to implement their "social" policies. An argument I have heard put forward in favour of Lisbon is that it would give the European Parliament more power at the expense of the Commission. The fact that the argument came from Ivana Bacik would of itself cause one to look twice at it, but what came to mind was the case of Rocco Buttiglione who was blocked as a prospective Commissioner by a bloc of Greens, the hard left and Northern European feminist MEPs because he acknowledged that he believed homosexualism to be morally wrong - even though he stated unequivocally that he saw it as his duty to keep his private opinions separate from his official responsibilities as Commissioner. The prospect of a European Parliament with greater power is not a happy one.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 24, 2009 11:08:38 GMT
The problem with voting for FF is that we cannot guarantee there will not be a FF-Labour coalition. This is true. The problem with voting against FF, however, is that this is a vote in favour of an arrangement of a coalition which would include Labour. The only thing that gives me any hope in this respect is that Labour seem pretty equivocal in their position on abortion - to put it cynically, Labour are as equivocal for abortion as FF and FG are equivocal against abortion. (I don't know of any FF TD who would be 'equivocal for abortion', but within FG, I would be suspicious of Alan Shatter, Brian Hayes and Frances Fitzgerald, to name some 'liberals' still at large in the party; within FF, I would be a bit worried about Barry Andrews' position in the pecking order).
We are in a tight corner. The defeat of the PHLP bill was from a pro-life point of view, an unmitigated disaster. There will be no second bite of the cherry on this one - and we can thank YD and Dana for not following advice by the vast majority of pro-life legal and medical people in this country on the eve of the referendum. A lot of pro-lifers voted no for the best possible reasons and more stayed at home. Only the proponents of abortion could be happy with that outcome.
Lisbon is a separate matter and no one can state with certainty that it would make abortion inevitable here. It is a matter to do with sovereignty and the economy principally and it has pros and cons. The example of the treatment of Rocco Buttiglione is a very strong con. But a campaign against Lisbon has to be waged responsibly. I was given a leaflet from Cóir by some pious soul yesterday after Mass (which is an inappropriate forum for this anyway - as stated above, Lisbon is not a matter of faith and morals - a great deal of Catholic politicians in every other European member state have already voted in favour, including in Poland and Malta; insofar as the Holy See has any position, it is probably in favour). The problem with the literature is that it laid the blame of the current economic crises at the foot of mass immigration. I found this to be rubbish, and I could see how the pro-Lisbon camp could dismiss this as racist.
BTW, Guillaume, raise this with Cóir. They will probably tell you they don't mean the French. This is disingenuous. The leadership of Cóir are slippery and need to be pinned down - because they could tar all no supporters with the same brush.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Aug 31, 2009 10:20:35 GMT
Once again "Alive!" is making a strong campaign against the Treaty and in favor of the vote NO.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Aug 31, 2009 10:29:42 GMT
. I was given a leaflet from Cóir by some pious soul yesterday after Mass (which is an inappropriate forum for this anyway - as stated above, Lisbon is not a matter of faith and morals - a great deal of Catholic politicians in every other European member state have already voted in favour, including in Poland and Malta; insofar as the Holy See has any position, it is probably in favour). The problem with the literature is that it laid the blame of the current economic crises at the foot of mass immigration. I found this to be rubbish, and I could see how the pro-Lisbon camp could dismiss this as racist. BTW, Guillaume, raise this with Cóir. They will probably tell you they don't mean the French. This is disingenuous. The leadership of Cóir are slippery and need to be pinned down - because they could tar all no supporters with the same brush. I do not know Coir. Unemployment = mass immigration, is as you probably know, the main theme of JM Lepen's National Front in France. But the issue of immigration in France is a far more serious issue as it is here in Ireland. In Ireland we do not have building of Mosques in main cities or even villages. You won't find yet humble chapels "replaced" by mosques. This is truth : Islam is becoming the principal religion in France. Here, in Ireland, our mass immigration came principally from Easter Europe and Poland in particular, which is a catholic population.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 16, 2009 16:38:32 GMT
Any thoughts on Bishop Treanor's intervention? My own view is that it went slightly too far. He ought to have said that it did not appear to the bishops that Lisbon affected Ireland's position on abortion, that it was possible for a Catholic to vote yes to Lisbon with a clear conscience so long as they did so with the right motives, and that the Church qua Church had no position on Lisbon. If he wanted to state his own position or that of the bishops (pretty transparent) he could do so. If he wished to complain that other groups were peddling inaccurate information he should give details. I have stated my view above - if I were in the Republic I would vote Yes with reservations. One of the Ireland's senior bishops on European affairs has said Catholics have no reason to vote No in the Lisbon Treaty referendum on religious or ethical grounds. For more: RTÉ.ie/Lisbon Bishop Noel Treanor told an Oireachtas Committee today that he can unequivocally state that a Catholic can vote Yes in good conscience. Bishop Treanor is the Vice President of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community. Bishop Treanor also said that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the legal position of abortion in Ireland. He said there are some organisations that are giving out misleading and inaccurate information on the treaty. He said none of them speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. www.rte.ie/news/2009/0916/eulisbon.html
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Sept 17, 2009 12:31:09 GMT
I'm still undecided but I am leaning towards the "No" vote at the moment.
I'm really getting fed up of reading in the papers what a "Yes" vote WONT mean for the country i.e. it wont give the EU power to enforce abortion or change our stance on Neutrality etc.....
Tell me what a "Yes" vote WILL do for the country for Gods Sake! How will a "Yes" vote improve things for me in real terms? The info on this seems to be thin on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 17, 2009 16:00:54 GMT
Any thoughts on Bishop Treanor's intervention? My own view is that it went slightly too far. He ought to have said that it did not appear to the bishops that Lisbon affected Ireland's position on abortion, that it was possible for a Catholic to vote yes to Lisbon with a clear conscience so long as they did so with the right motives, and that the Church qua Church had no position on Lisbon. If he wanted to state his own position or that of the bishops (pretty transparent) he could do so. If he wished to complain that other groups were peddling inaccurate information he should give details. I have stated my view above - if I were in the Republic I would vote Yes with reservations. One of the Ireland's senior bishops on European affairs has said Catholics have no reason to vote No in the Lisbon Treaty referendum on religious or ethical grounds. For more: RTÉ.ie/Lisbon Bishop Noel Treanor told an Oireachtas Committee today that he can unequivocally state that a Catholic can vote Yes in good conscience. Bishop Treanor is the Vice President of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community. Bishop Treanor also said that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the legal position of abortion in Ireland. He said there are some organisations that are giving out misleading and inaccurate information on the treaty. He said none of them speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. www.rte.ie/news/2009/0916/eulisbon.htmlSorry Hiber, but to vote "yes with reservation" does not make sense. You vote YES or NO, point. On our Bulletin there is no "with caution, with reservation". At the limit you cannot vote at all, but in this case it is YES or NO. Voting "with reservation" makes no sense. "May your yes, be yes and no, be no".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 17, 2009 17:27:30 GMT
Yes with reservations is a recommendation to vote Yes while recognising there is some force to the No argument. It is so called to distinguish it from such vulgar and obnoxious dismissals of the No case as Nick McGinley's book 100 REASONS TO VOTE YES TO LISBON II. Those who can spare five minutes to read the section on the anti-abortion case against Lisbon in a bookshop (I wouldn't ask them to buy it) and can do so withotu spewing will see the moral blindness of the "cool" and "trendy" comedian mindset on the issue of abortion on full display. Essentially this tome is an expression of the herd mind, maintaining that it's coll to vote Yes and only the Uncool will ovte No. This sort of thing has more influence than we realise.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 18, 2009 13:42:33 GMT
I'm still undecided but I am leaning towards the "No" vote at the moment. I'm really getting fed up of reading in the papers what a "Yes" vote WONT mean for the country i.e. it wont give the EU power to enforce abortion or change our stance on Neutrality etc..... Tell me what a "Yes" vote WILL do for the country for Gods Sake! How will a "Yes" vote improve things for me in real terms? The info on this seems to be thin on the ground. This is a very reasonable view and exposes a major weakness in the 'Yes' campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 18, 2009 13:45:22 GMT
Any thoughts on Bishop Treanor's intervention? I'd like to know what his opinion is of a resolution by the European Parliament condemning a decision by the Lithuanian Parliament to prohibit propaganda for homosexual, bisexual or polygamous lifestyles among the under 18s.
|
|