I attended a debate in NUIG last Thursday on the motion that “This House believes no means no.” Proponents of the motion were Jens Peter Bonde, John McGuirk and Tomas Sharkey. Opponents were Jim Higgins MEP, Prionias DeRossa MEP and Timmy Dooley TD.
First up was Jens Peter Bonde who asserted that not one of the opponents had read the Treaty, He criticised the Referendum Commission for not explaining the Treaty and the Yes Side for not mentioning the Treaty. He reassured the audience that regardless of how they vote we would still remain a member of the EU. He closed with a simple statement asking us to read the Treaty and decide for ourselves.
He was followed by Timmy Dooley who brazenly opened with “In the EU no does not mean no.” He told us that the Treaty “obliges the EU to take into account employment.” And that it gives more transparency. He continued to suggest that we were in Chad under an EU mandate whereas in fact it’s an EU led team under a UN. He mentioned that having a full time High Representative of the EU would make it more democratic, this is despite the position not being electable.
Next came John McGuirk who it can’t be denied is a fantastic debater. He and I met for a round of pool prior to the debate (I kicked his ass) and he showed me his speech which turned out to be a black A4 refill pad. When it was time for him to speak he opened with the line “Are you afraid yet? Because you should be.” He called the past month “a parody of a campaign and that it’s not far form becoming a campaign of “Yes to Kittens, Yes to Europe.”. He described the treaty as consisting of policies that put us on the road to recession. That the yes side’s argument of combating prostitution was flawed as Ireland had received opt outs on this and that business weren’t going to be deterred from investing in Ireland because “we not seen to be sufficiently committed to EU bureaucracy.”
After which came Jim Higgins MEP who asserted that there were “No changes in the text.” and that we’d received legally binding guarantees. He said Ireland was an attractive place to invest because “we speak English and have a well educated workforce.” Which I can’t see changing if we vote no…
Tomás Sharkey was next who used the analogy of a woman on her wedding day saying no only to be brought back to the church after her parents decided they knew what was best for her. He said Lisbon was a “A failed document, by failed politicians based on failed economics.” He said that the loss of a commissioner, under Nice, was only possible in a unanimous vote and he implored us to vote no so as to “give our government an opportunity to grow back bone.”
Prionias DeRossa was next. I was sent his speech in its entirety to I’ll post it.
Irish people stand to gain enormously from the Lisbon Treaty. Look at the statement ‘The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights‘ Remember that this Charter becomes primary law under Lisbon (Art.6 TEU).
These rights apply to all men, women and children of the union, employed and unemployed, farmers and those in the fishing industry. Voting yes is voting for a more caring Ireland in a better Europe; nothing more, nothing less.
The NO campaigners want us to believe that Lisbon is about euthanasia, abortion, European armies and big states overwhelming smaller ones. Let’s look at the facts. There has been no conscription and there will not be and this is spelled out in the Legal Guarantees. Ireland’s vote at the top table will rise to 3.7% because every country has one equal vote as part of its voting rights. Those who say our vote is weakened are either poor at maths or treating the Irish public as fools.
So why are Sinn Fein, Coir, UKIP and Mr Ganley peddling fear and lies? What is their real purpose?
“Hardcore NO campaigns are driven by fear and loathing of the European Union, of its workplace protections and its dedication to democracy and its pluralism. UKIP is pushing for a free trade area that couldn’t care less about workers’ rights. COIR hates what the EU stands for; equality, pluralism and respect for all. They desire censorship, protectionism and isolation.
Mr Ganley wants a Europe that is hardcore military and an end to a neutral Ireland.
Sinn Fein are opportunists, trying to make their party relevant, refusing to accept the guarantees negotiated since last time on the Commissioner, neutrality and conscription. They continue to say no to Europe as they have done since the start.”
Astonishingly, a group calling itself ‘Women Say No to Lisbon – Again’ dismiss the Lisbon provisions against people trafficking, Arts. 79 & 83 TFEU, saying that because the Irish Government has opted-out from this area, these provisions are of no use to Ireland. This position displays an appalling isolationism and a depressing lack of solidarity with the 1.2 million victims of trafficking worldwide, according to the ILO. Many of these are women and children, trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Surely the progressive attitude would be to adopt the Lisbon Treaty so that at least women and children elsewhere would benefit from it, and then to campaign for Ireland to opt-in?
Already a combination of Eurosceptics and neo-Nazis are stronger in the European Parliament since the defeat of the European reforms in Ireland, France and Holland. A NO vote would herald a change of direction in Europe away from a more progressive union that respects families and workers and is pledged to full employment and a social market economy.
Ireland must be able to trade freely with the rest of a Europe which has common environmental and workplace standards agreed by all members and applying to all members. We will not survive and thrive in a more protectionist world. We need the reforms which Lisbon heralds on climate change, global poverty and the hunger crisis and we need a coherent and united Europe to work together to tackle the financial crisis and look for new and imaginative ways to create jobs and stability across all its member states. Europe has been good for this country and our citizens for 36 years. Let’s not throw it away.
Over all I have to say that the best speaker was John McGuirk, possibly because he is a closest to the age group of the audience but still has exceptional ability and the best on the yes side was Jim Higgins who made some substantial points on the document. Sadly though he resorted to some slurs on the no side.
