Questions and Answers on Now

AngryHippie · 10-06-2008 2:53am

I think that perhaps that airtime might be one for reeling in the years 2020, When all the blanks will have been filled in, and the irony emerges

Until then it remains a very poor show from what our political system threw up as their representatives to explain or debate either side. There were some very good questions from the audience, who gave ample opportunity to both sides equally to demonstrate how farcical this treaty is. The irony is that we are the only country who effectively gets a chance to vote on this pile of turds either way.
There was plenty of blah blah that we have all heard and seen before courtesy of Declan milling around convincing everybody that they know all about it, But nobody has said what will happen the day after we vote no to it ?
what will change ?

Nobody really outlined plan B,

:DEurope ratifies the treaty without us, we continue as we are in europe ?

:pac:we lose our commisioner 5 out of ten years anyway (bad plan in 1st place)?

:rolleyes:We still have existing status in EU, but rest of EU is "more integrated" then it gets niced in 18 months time and we join up anyway ?

:eek:The ECB screws us over by putting up interest rates sooner and the bank of somewhere else ends up owning most of Ireland and we live as paupers in our own country? (a la Bolivia)

:mad:We lose a shedload of money from EU development funds, relations in Brussels get a little frosty, Taxes go up, inflation and fuel shortages threaten ?

We unexpectedly gain the support most of the countries who did not get a chance to vote on it, resulting in a further 5 years of negotiations to finally draw together a full constitution, that can be read and understood by all those entitled to a vote in the EU. Such a constitution is essential to a drawing together of this scale and the Irish are eventually hailed as having the guts not to compromise the power of people.?:cool:

What do the bookies reckon ?

AngryHippie · 10-06-2008 3:07am

riff_man79 wrote: »

Well i think i am fair minded and was open minded for tonights debate. I just felt Enda and Michael talking over Mary and Declan alot right from the beginning,

There were several times that I considered switching it off, The Dail has that effect on people, they turn into self important ignorami, with the exception of those who know how to keep their heads down and do some work.

riff_man79 wrote: »

I think Mary Lou did very well tonight, especailly compared to the last time she was on.

Yes but she gets all smug when she does manage to make a point and trivialises the whole thing, giving off the completely wrong impression for the occasion, pretty inept imo

Call Me Jimmy · 10-06-2008 3:10am

riff_man79 wrote:

Call me Jimmy, i dont exactly agree. I will agree to your point that there are some silly No voters "i'm voting no because i want my freedom" but i think that both sides have silly people voting wither way for silly reasons.

Yea, of course I know there are people on both sides who vote for silly reasons but I mean, I haven't heard too many from the yes side personally and if I were to guess I'de say the NO vote is appealing to the lazy (a large number of people) because in order to support it all they need is one sound-bite or banner ad (Note: I'm not attacking people who vote no!) -
"Our commissioner gone for five years at a time" for example.

riff_man79 wrote:

Well i think i am fair minded and was open minded for tonights debate. I just felt Enda and Michael talking over Mary and Declan alot right from the beginning,not letting the people here there views. This was the same last time, i really wanted to here important points for the No side last time but everytime something was brought up the Yes side just talked over them. I think Mary Lou did very well tonight, especailly compared to the last time she was on.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree because I really thought the talking out of turn was pretty even, but Enda Kenny couldn't get a single word in in the latter part of the show! The only time I remember him talking out of turn or swaying the argument was when he was pointing at that mary lou has been campaigning for higher corpo tax while arguing that lisbon would danger our low rates.

riff_man79 wrote:

I think Mary Lou did very well tonight, especailly compared to the last time she was on.

I don't think she did very well at all. Especially when she was completely dumbfounded by one of the questions and the other guy tried to answer but then she was asked to answer and basically repeated the question without a question mark :P

Mr.Nice Guy · 10-06-2008 4:05am

I thought the woman in the audience summed it up best. The Yes side were acting like 12 year olds talking over everyone.

skelliser · 10-06-2008 4:25am

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I don't think she did very well at all. Especially when she was completely dumbfounded by one of the questions and the other guy tried to answer but then she was asked to answer and basically repeated the question without a question mark :P

that was when she was asked what was plan b? if there was a no result, waffled her way thru it, summed it up for me!

murphaph · 10-06-2008 9:09am

ateam wrote: »

The fact that other countries haven't had a referendum is none of our business. If the voters are that concerned, they can vote out the party that brought in the treaty, simple as.

I disagree on both points here. First of all it is a concern to me as a committed European that the citizens of 2 (large) fellow member states, who have already made their feelings on this document (90% of it anyway) clear have been ignored. A total of around 65 million people IIRC have been ignored. Your second point is a nonsense....who would we replace FF with if they steamrolled this in against our will? The same situation exists across our continent...no coice for people who don't want this constitution.

10-06-2008 9:10am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I thought the woman in the audience summed it up best. The Yes side were acting like 12 year olds talking over everyone.

In fairness,that lady was from Coir and spouting nonsense regardless of the flurry of correction on abortion,she was a fine wan to talk.

She reminds me of the auld wan that handed me a leaflet from coir that was all lies about losing a commissioner and of course misinformation on abortion.

The day I personally don't tackle that kind of shoite is the day I stop breathing.

10-06-2008 9:13am

murphaph wrote: »

who would we replace FF with if they steamrolled this in against our will? The same situation exists across our continent...no coice for people who don't want this constitution.

Fact of the matter is if any party here took a deliberate part in removing prosperity from voters they would lose support.
Thats human nature.

To answer your question though if you are still worried about the main parties support for Lisbon,you'd have Sinn Féin

is_that_so · 10-06-2008 9:16am

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

One observation I've made is that through sensationilstic headlines and adverts it has made people feel more strongly either way about this treaty and consequently their seems to be a lot more emotion involved. There is a lot of paranoia and it seems people are grouping themselves as a yes'er or a no'er and viewing the other 'side' as the enemy.

This is par for the course and has been a feature of referenda down the years, especially when it comes to things like abortion.

redspider · 10-06-2008 9:21am

I saw bits of this last night. It was a good enough format, 2 v 2, but I thought that there were too many 'interested parties' in the audience. It would have been much better if the audience was laced with 5 from each side representing 'vested' interests and the rest representing dont knows. And as mentioned John Bowman didnt contol it that well and let them talk over each other too much.

Labour were conspicuous by their absence, which is telling as they among all parties are torn with this treaty or more specifically the way that the 'EU project' is going. No Green's either.

In terms of "Inda", I think he performed okay. (Long term though FG will need a new leader for the next GE so they should be gearing up for that now imo). I dont like Meehal's attitude at times on a lot of things. He is very 'right wing' in attitude and approach, perhaps endemic in the FF leadership at the moment which is 'we can do no wrong' and 'we make decisions for the plain people of Ireland' and 'this is the way that you should be voting if you know whats good for you'.

Direct Taxes are not affected by the treaty per se, BUT the tools afforded in the treaty will allow sub-groups of countries to create self-interest tax rules if they chose to do so, the so called 'destination' tax. This may come in regardless of a Yes or a No vote though.

Loss of the Commissioner, the only points the Yes side can make is that a) everyone is in the same boat (but with loss of votes elsewhere this is a moot support), and b) its already in Nice (but just because something is already agreed it doesnt mean that it is right or better!). Everyone knows that having someone at the table is better than not.

Abortion is an emotive issue and is not affected by this treaty. The Coir person though does have a point in that the ECJ has judged abortion as a service. Like 'human rights' decisions, this one is likely to run and Ireland may be forced to accept it whether we (as a nation) agree to it or not. Of course the real truth on the ground is that if a female wants/needs an abortion, she just goes to England to get one.

The Lisbon Treaty is not a major treaty per se, it is a fix this and a fix that type of solution, but its not clear if it brings that many or any advantages to Ireland (and other small nations in the EU), and the manner it is being brought in (shove it down their throats) is a great injustice to democratic principles.

There is a lot wrong with the EU and the Lisbon Treaty doesnt solve many of those problems, and may in fact create more and new ones.

AngryHippie wrote: »

But nobody has said what will happen the day after we vote no to it ? what will change ?

:DEurope ratifies the treaty without us, we continue as we are in europe ?

The EU cant ratify the treaty without us. If one country rejects it, it is rejected for ALL. end of. Of course, that wont stop the EU from ammending the treaty and putting it to us again, Lisbon II as it were ala Nice-II. Technically a completely different treaty whilst probably being very similar. They may roll back on the Commissioners change for example. There will be a lot of head-scratching though, but they will know that Nice-II succeeded with no major changes and that the Irish people's 'resistance' may tire the second time around.

Vote wisely ....

Redspider

gixerfixer · 10-06-2008 9:45am

Thought that kenny made a complete and utter fool of himself there last night. Refused to answer questions directly time and time again and his reference to Sein Fein's private army was an embarrasment:o

10-06-2008 9:52am

redspider wrote: »

Loss of the Commissioner, the only points the Yes side can make is that a) everyone is in the same boat (but with loss of votes elsewhere this is a moot support), and b) its already in Nice (but just because something is already agreed it doesnt mean that it is right or better!). Everyone knows that having someone at the table is better than not.

True but still it is wrong for No proponents to be suggesting the withdrawal of a commissioner as a reason why to vote no.

Abortion is an emotive issue and is not affected by this treaty. The Coir person though does have a point in that the ECJ has judged abortion as a service. Like 'human rights' decisions, this one is likely to run and Ireland may be forced to accept it whether we (as a nation) agree to it or not. Of course the real truth on the ground is that if a female wants/needs an abortion, she just goes to England to get one.

That latter part is so true and a blindness thats just sheer stupidity pervading any "pro life" person that ignores that point.
I disagree though that abortion even described as a service can be introduced in spite of our masstricht protocol (also in Lisbon) strictly forbidding it.
An ECJ cannot change our constitution.
Only a referendum can do that.The protocol forms part of our constitution.

humanji · 10-06-2008 10:06am

gixerfixer wrote: »

Thought that kenny made a complete and utter fool of himself there last night. Refused to answer questions directly time and time again and his reference to Sein Fein's private army was an embarrasment:o

I thought that was hilarious. It was a bit of a low blow, but the scowl on Mary-Lou's face had me in stitches. It was like she was about to go for Enda. I don't like Kenny, but of the 4 panelists, he seemed the only one who knew what he was talking about. The others seemed to struggle and stammer at times, but Kenny came across as very confident.

Overall, I thought it was a fairly good debate. There should of been many more like it, breaking down the treaty to simpler terms for the layperson. It's just very late in the day to explain it to people now though, as most will have their minds made up and won't be shifted.

redspider · 10-06-2008 10:21am

Deleted User wrote: »

(1)True but still it is wrong for No proponents to be suggesting the withdrawal of a commissioner as a reason why to vote no.

(2)I disagree though that abortion even described as a service can be introduced in spite of our masstricht protocol (also in Lisbon) strictly forbidding it. An ECJ cannot change our constitution. Only a referendum can do that.The protocol forms part of our constitution.

(1) How is it wrong for the No side to suggest that? Any 'observed' deficiency or advantage in the treaty is surely a basis for voting one way or the other. Or are you proposing that even if it is a recognised 'wart' by some, that they can should still vote Yes? I agree that someone could decide that on balance (considering all the warts and all the advantages) they can vote Yes or indeed No, depending on how they assess the balance. But any voter can use just one deficiency or just one advantage to sway them one way or the other, and if someone wants to vote No due to the lack of a Commissioner (even if its already in Nice-II), they can do so.

(2) I dont know the ins and outs of how or what the ECJ can do in terms of over-riding protocols, laws and treaties when there are 'conflicts'. The various cases in Ireland over the years and our own referenda show how abortion is a very difficult topic. The right-to-travel of course practically 'solves it', but the debate rages on more from an academic point of view and on a point of principle rather than anything else. In practical purposes, what the EU and ECJ decides, doesnt matter.

Redspider

The_Minister · 10-06-2008 10:23am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I thought the woman in the audience summed it up best. The Yes side were acting like 12 year olds talking over everyone.

I was in the audience, and there was plenty (read: more) of hollering from the No side, and general insults, but the mike must have been further from them if you didn't notice it.
From the audience the Yes side walked it, as people in the audience had the dates of when Ganley said those things that hedenied saying etc, but they must have lower the mikes in that part of the audience.

Enda was woeful.

bazwaldo · 10-06-2008 10:23am

I still think many are undecided. Myself and the wife for starters. I watched last night to try figure out the implications of a YES or NO and am still clueless. I thought the YES side rarely answered their questions but there was so much butting in and talking over, it was difficult to answer anything.

I'm reading here to see if that helps. It hasn't yet.

So far I think that the treaty has some good and some bad points and this is the problem for me. One major concern is the corporation tax. This country would be in tatters if multi-nationals starting pulling out. They may not if the tax is increased, but theres a chance. The NO says that the EU can override our veto on tax someway. Is this true? The YES side didn't answer this at all.

The_Minister · 10-06-2008 10:28am

The Q and A programme was not a good way to decide your vote, it was a farce.

The Yes side have (in their opinion) nailed corporation tax repeatedly, but the No side just keep making the same arguements.

bazwaldo · 10-06-2008 10:36am

Can anyone point me to a post or link to an article stating all the pros and cons from someone unbiased that speaks the truth? Does that exist?

Theres so many one-sided statements its impossible to know whats what.

colly10 · 10-06-2008 10:40am

sink wrote: »

That nutter going on about abortion was unreal. It's like she's saying EU law doesn't matter the ECJ is an abominable tyrant that doesn't give a damn about the law.

From what I have heard this treaty will not change our human rights, they will however be interpreted by the ECJ rather than by the supreme court. Now the ECJ has already ruled that it considers abortion to be a "service". If you deny someone a service then I assume that you are denying them a right. This is where the ECJ could step in as they will now rule on your rights.
It appears that some aspects of the treaty can be open to interpretation and we'll have to wait and see what happens on certain issues after the treaty is passed. So imo it's hardly totally off the wall to come to that conclusion, as far as im aware it's backed up with facts rather than just pulled out of thin air.

ateam wrote: »

The No side has a lot to answer for with regard to complicating this Treaty.

So does the yes side. All I would want is to hear a few clear benefits to this country (not the EU) from voting yes and it's sold. Instead they are telling us about certain powers we will not loose, what do we gain? We certainly loose in areas for example - being forced to increase our military spending (when health and education badly need money) - so what do we gain for this.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

For example, in one of the threads I read someone saying he's voting no because he has the freedom to... that sort of stuff is hard to swallow!

I've heard people on the yes side saying they're voting yes because Sinn Fein are voting no (as much as I don't like that party), or voting yes because the EU have been good to us in the past (yes they have, does this mean we should accept anything? No it's irrelevant). There's gob****es on both sides.

TelePaul wrote: »

I think that the only thing one can say is that the debate was chaired very poorly

+1 - At some stages you couldn't hear either side, it was very irratating to listen to

colly10 · 10-06-2008 10:44am

bazwaldo wrote: »

Can anyone point me to a post or link to an article stating all the pros and cons from someone unbiased that speaks the truth? Does that exist?

Theres so many one-sided statements its impossible to know whats what.

That would be difficult to do as everyone is biased in one way or another and what I may consider to be an unbiased source would not be in the eyes of others and visa versa.
Not all unbiased sources are completly unbiased.
If I was you id search google, find points which are backed up by treaty text and come to your own conclusion

bazwaldo · 10-06-2008 10:58am

One point which someone brought up was the percentage of politians on the YES campaign. Surely they have Irelands interest at heart. Losing power to the EU is surely not an attractive option for them or getting the corporation tax level taken out of our hands. So whats in the YES vote for them? Are they afraid to go against an EU plan?

A lot of the NO side are the type that just pick the opposite of the mainstream to give themselves a bit of publicity. IMHO.

mike65 · 10-06-2008 11:19am

Did not bother watching the sections on Abortion or Neutrality as they are both bogus, overall it was "as you were" no-one will have changed thier minds after watching. McDonald must have been on a course, she was suprisingly good at presenting her position even if you didn't agree with her. Kenny is such an old man. I know it should be substance over style but he has neither and was a bad choice by FG.

Mike.

Jip · 10-06-2008 11:38am

Have to agree with what everyone has said about Kenny, he was pretty dire and an embarrasment imo, he tended to play the man and not the ball most of the time which came across as a desperate tactic. Even though I'm not a SF supporter or agree with their policies I thought McDonald came out the most composed.
I watched with my wife who up until now hasn't been following any of the pro or con arguments and she came away heading towards a No vote, don't think the Yes side done themselves any favours last night.

billy the squid · 10-06-2008 11:56am

In terms of conduct, I think many on the Yes side are frustrated by some of the downright childish attitudes of some of the No voters. For example, in one of the threads I read someone saying he's voting no because he has the freedom to... that sort of stuff is hard to swallow!

There are 496 million eu citizens who have been denied that freedom to vote on this treaty.

ateam · 10-06-2008 11:59am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I thought the woman in the audience summed it up best. The Yes side were acting like 12 year olds talking over everyone.

After which she proceeded to talk over Enda Kenny rudely completely undermining her point.

Pat Kenny almost had to slap her yesterday to stop talking in order to let other people in to talk. That woman has a chip on her shoulder.

jank · 10-06-2008 11:59am

Did anyone else notice the IFA guy saying in the end "it was a big pity we have a british EU commissioner".

WTF? He made a right tit of himself

ateam · 10-06-2008 12:01pm

billy the squid wrote: »

There are 496 million eu citizens who have been denied that freedom to vote on this treaty.

Not relevant at all to the Treaty.

sink · 10-06-2008 12:04pm

jank wrote: »

Did anyone else notice the IFA guy saying in the end "it was a big pity we have a british EU commissioner".

WTF? He made a right tit of himself

Madelson is the commissioner for trade and he is the guy negotiating the WTO trade deal. He want to abolish the cap as it is an unfair subsidy and this will destroy agriculture in this country. In that context his statement was understandable.

sink · 10-06-2008 12:05pm

billy the squid wrote: »

There are 496 million eu citizens who have been denied that freedom to vote on this treaty.

Do you realise that we were the only ones to vote on the Nice treaty as well. I don't remember many people factoring that in to their decision back then.

BlitzKrieg · 10-06-2008 12:07pm

redspider wrote: »

Loss of the Commissioner, the only points the Yes side can make is that a) everyone is in the same boat (but with loss of votes elsewhere this is a moot support), and b) its already in Nice (but just because something is already agreed it doesnt mean that it is right or better!). Everyone knows that having someone at the table is better than not.

The the one billionth time, WE DO NOT OWN COMMISSIONERS! They are representatives of the EU not of their countries, it doesnt matter where they come from, what matters is what they represent when they elected into the position. A commissioner from ireland wont and cant do anything *for* ireland. Thats what the Council of Ministers is for, they represent the individual member states. So we cant lose what is not ours to begin with. This change needs to come because the the structure of the commission has become outdated with the expansion.

Questions and Answers on Now

Comments