Questions and Answers on Now

ateam

Just to inform people that there's a special Questions and Answers on now about the Treaty. Should be good viewing.

is_that_so

Surprised John Bowman is not trying to keep a better grip on this. :rolleyes: And nice to see Mary Lou being put in her place. If there are moments as in the GE then maybe this is the one that make sup people's minds. Very late in the day for the Yes to be getting off their arses.

murphaph

Michael Martin and Enda Kenny.....are the YES side looking to lose or what?

At least it's a discussion on where the EU is going. Shame the other 486 million citizens aren't involved IMO.

is_that_so

Yes not the best pairing you can think of but both have picked off a few points although the choice of Mary Lou and Ganley on the No side makes it easier. Of more interest is what is coming from the floor apart from the very strident Coir individual.

sink

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.

Michael Martin and Enda Kenny have been very good actually.
I'm starting to see Enda Kenny in a new light.

Mary Lou has some cheek to be talking about protecting corporation taxation competency.
She wants to protect the competency alright...so she can put it up as high as possible :rolleyes:

lie bertas of course in the shape of that fellah [sarcasm] with the cork accent [/sarcasm] on the panel are being their usual misleading selves.
The abortion interjections by Ganley being an example.

Theres lots of examples of the old addage .."if you repeat something often enough people will start to think it's true.."

sink

The best comment was about Mary Lou wanting to stop US flights through Shannon and Declan Ganley wanting to get his kit on them.:D

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

sink wrote: »

The best comment was about Mary Lou wanting to stop US flights through Shannon and Declan Ganley wanting to get his kit on them.:D

that was wonderful

www.rte.ie/live cut off before the end though, bastards.

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

Mary Lou has some cheek to be talking about protecting corporation taxation competency.
She wants to protect the competency alright...so she can put it up as high as possible :rolleyes:

Aye. The shinners seem to have forgotten about their pledge to put corpo taxes to 40% or 50% if they got in power...

jank

Deleted User wrote: »

Michael Martin and Enda Kenny have been very good actually.
I'm starting to see Enda Kenny in a new light.

Mary Lou has some cheek to be talking about protecting corporation taxation competency.
She wants to protect the competency alright...so she can put it up as high as possible :rolleyes:

lie bertas of course in the shape of that fellah [sarcasm] with the cork accent [/sarcasm] on the panel are being their usual misleading selves.
The abortion interjections by Ganley being an example.

Theres lots of examples of the old addage .."if you repeat something often enough people will start to think it's true.."

Sorry but i dont know what show you were watching. Enda was a rambling fool tonight, even by his bad standards he was terrible. If that is the best FG can come up with then we might aswell call off the next GE....and i voted FG last time!:mad: I think the NO vote loved him being on it tonight, as they helped them more

ateam

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

that was wonderful

www.rte.ie/live cut off before the end though, bastards.

Think it ran over time on tv.

The Choir or something rep made outrageous comments, made a comment about the Yes side shouting and then proceeded to shout over Enda Kenny herself.

Another woman in the audience had the nerve to say that "we" the Irish people don't understand the Treaty. So sick of this argument, it's offensive. She should speak for herself. Most do understand it and those that don't haven't bothered to read up on it.

The argument about the rest of Europe not getting a vote is another red herring, completely unrelated to the Treaty itself and to be honest, so what what other countries do.

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

ateam

jank wrote: »

Sorry but i dont know what show you were watching. Enda was a rambling fool tonight, even by his bad standards he was terrible. If that is the best FG can come up with then we might aswell call off the next GE....and i voted FG last time!:mad: I think the NO vote loved him being on it tonight, as they helped them more

Same can be said for Mary Lou. Not an Enda Kenny fan but he did ok. Obviously you're a floating and uncommitted voter that regularly changes their mind.

jank

ateam wrote: »

Same can be said for Mary Lou. Not an Enda Kenny fan but he did ok. Obviously you're a floating and uncommitted voter that regularly changes their mind.

Ya you like know me so well ...like "Rolleyes"!!

Splendour

ateam wrote: »

Think it ran over time on tv.

The argument about the rest of Europe not getting a vote is another red herring, completely unrelated to the Treaty itself and to be honest, so what what other countries do.
./QUOTE]


How would you feel if your government decided for you what way they were gonna swing on this? Am sure there are plenty of E.U. citizens would love to be in the postition the Irish people are in now with regards to voting.
It's not what other countries do, but rather what other countries governments are doing...

sink

Splendour wrote: »

How would you feel if your government decided for you what way they were gonna swing on this? Am sure there are plenty of E.U. citizens would love to be in the postition the Irish people are in now with regards to voting.
It's not what other countries do, but rather what other countries governments are doing...

Ireland were the only country that voted on Nice too. I don't remember anybody making a fuss about it then.

blast05

Sorry but i dont know what show you were watching. Enda was a rambling fool tonight, even by his bad standards he was terrible. If that is the best FG can come up with then we might aswell call off the next GE....and i voted FG last time! I think the NO vote loved him being on it tonight, as they helped them more

I would have to disagree, i thought he was pretty good actually - miles ahead of his last major performance against Bertie in the run up to the election. He made at least 4 or 5 well structured and clear points that would have steered voters opinion to Yes .... this is something even Cowen in the same forum would not have been able to do cos he would have been too strong and robust in this situation

mike65

I only saw the last few mins online I'll watch it back tomorrow - on P.ie they thought Kenny and Martin (esp Kenny) were poor.

Mike.

ircoha

ateam wrote: »

Think it ran over time on tv.

The Choir or something rep made outrageous comments, made a comment about the Yes side shouting and then proceeded to shout over Enda Kenny herself.

Another woman in the audience had the nerve to say that "we" the Irish people don't understand the Treaty. So sick of this argument, it's offensive. She should speak for herself. Most do understand it and those that don't haven't bothered to read up on it.

The argument about the rest of Europe not getting a vote is another red herring, completely unrelated to the Treaty itself and to be honest, so what what other countries do.

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

Only as red as the yarn by the yes side that they will all be cross at us if we vote NO.

Martin's last comment was the most interesting: the FT want us to vote yes: nuff said:(

ateam

Splendour wrote: »

ateam wrote: »

Think it ran over time on tv.

The argument about the rest of Europe not getting a vote is another red herring, completely unrelated to the Treaty itself and to be honest, so what what other countries do.
./QUOTE]


How would you feel if your government decided for you what way they were gonna swing on this? Am sure there are plenty of E.U. citizens would love to be in the postition the Irish people are in now with regards to voting.
It's not what other countries do, but rather what other countries governments are doing...

The government decides things for us every single day. We voted them in to do exactly that. They received a mandate.

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.

ateam

ircoha wrote: »

Only as red as the yarn by the yes side that they will all be cross at us if we vote NO.

Martin's last comment was the most interesting: the FT want us to vote yes: nuff said:(

What's wrong with the FT?

Call Me Jimmy

I just don't know, what is this great incentive that that the likes of enda kenny would have for wanting a yes vote? If he thought that something like the corporation tax was in danger what is his incentive for supporting that? People talk about the politicians wanting to get a yes vote to "save face in europe" but even if that was their sole motivation then why do you think they'de be so concerned about that? In that case they obviously see that it would be best for our nation in future dealings.

And then there's the little stuff like us not having a commissioner for 5 years (which is on the libertas banner ad above). Do people just not know that this applies to every member state equally and it's not like for the 5 years we don't have a commissioner that our corporate tax rate, abortion laws and neutrality are in danger because of it. Every country goes for 5 years out of fifteen without one of the people who come up with ideas for legislation that's it. How is that a point that it's bad for ireland? It is obviously done with a view to making the whole thing more efficient.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

I only saw the last few mins online I'll watch it back tomorrow - on P.ie they thought Kenny and Martin (esp Kenny) were poor.

Mike.

I wouldn't mind them [p.ie]
I thought he was excelent actually and so was Martin.For the first time ever I was actually well impressed with Kennys style and the safeness he exuded- ie a safe pair of hands.
More of this please.

mike65

I'll judge for myself

Mike.

bug

Luckily for me, (not having an affiliation/inherited leaning to, or abject hatred of, any particular party or personality on the panel) -I actually found the debate really useful.

As I said in a misplaced post (sorry Oscar),

I trust FF, FG, and Sinn Fein, along with "Devil" Declan and libertas, equally.

Possibly everyone on that panel has their vested interests - the question is for us is to see passed all this and look at the debate at hand and how it effects us.

Its about the treaty, and debate of it. End of. It's not your a star.

And its not party or personality political.

riff_man79

I decided a month or two ago that i was going to vote no on this treaty. Initially , i admit that it was my perception of a treaty being delivered to us in a cloak and dagger sort of way, trying to pass a treaty against the will of the people and all that. So this was my basis when debates in pubs started brewing i realised i, among with most people involved the the debate, i knew nothing about it.

So i researched. I am still voting no for many reasons but i have a two questions and an observation.

The questions are:

If this treaty is so bad for Ireland why are most political parties voting for it?

Do people agree that the majority of the treaty is great for Ireland but there are a few main sticking points that need to be changed for the treaty to be much better, and passable for the no voters?

And the observation. I have enjoyed coming onto boards and reading the educated users thoughts for the pros and cons. But why do the majority of yes voters feel the need to make there point, then throw in an insult to try degrade the others person views. Don't get me wrong, no voters have done the same, but watching Questions and Answers tonight got me thinling for 2 reasons?

Michael Martin and Enda Kennys tactic of continuely talking over Mary and Declan and indeed the man in charge while in reverse there were given the respect when making points more often than not, really annoyed me. How many times did Mary and Declan point out that this is a debate about the treaty and not the political parties in question.

And also, as a lady pointed out in the audience, when the yes side made points they were maybe met with people shouting their opinions but when a no point of few was put forwad it was met with childish boo's and hisses. I have fo me, if i had not done my research that i would still have voted no because of how the yes side conduct themselves. Talking down to no voters, condisending and arrogant. For those of you who do that, shame on you - don't turn your argument into its intelligent people voting yes and stupid voting no, i think we agree with alot of your positive points about the treaty but its the bad things we're woried about - but keep it up because it will turn people to the no side:D

I have no intention to cause arguments just wanted to get my observation out there, but feel free to correct me if you so wish.

My reasons, by the way for voting no would be

Loss of neutrality(a debatable point but in my opinion we will)
Increase in taxes(inevitable i think)
Less power in Europe.
The people in/soon to be in charge in europe(corrupt individuals the government dont want. People who have been charge with embezzlement, allegations of corruption etc)

billy the squid

The two yes panalists came accross as arrogant and ignorant, as though they had a right to talk over everyone else. Inda must have learned that trick from Bertie when he was doing it during the leaders debate last year.

Call Me Jimmy

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!

And I don't think that any fair minded person could say the yes politicians did any more speaking out of turn than the no side. In fact, there were very few occasions where enda could get a word in without being interrupted by the opposing panel or the some wench in the audience.

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.

K-9

riff_man79 wrote: »

I
And also, as a lady pointed out in the audience, when the yes side made points they were maybe met with people shouting their opinions but when a no point of few was put forwad it was met with childish boo's and hisses.

This was on both sides. The spokesperson for Coir did complain about this and then proceeded to shout her opinions at Enda Kenny when he was speaking for 2 minutes!

Call Me Jimmy

As I said, no fair minded person could say the yes guys did any more of it than the no side.

riff_man79

Seanies32 wrote: »

This was on both sides. The spokesperson for Coir did complain about this and then proceeded to shout her opinions at Enda Kenny when he was speaking for 2 minutes!

I still think theres a big difference to shouting at someone(which i dont agree with when someone is talking) and booing and hissing. But thats just my opinion.

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.

"And I don't think that any fair minded person could say the yes politicians did any more speaking out of turn than the no side. In fact, there were very few occasions where enda could get a word in without being interrupted by the opposing panel or the some wench in the audience."

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.

"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"

Totally agree,well said.

TelePaul

I think that the only thing one can say is that the debate was chaired very poorly - chaired may be too strong a word for it in fact. It's a shame, it had potential, and a few issues might have been clarified.

Thought Kenny was quite good, probably the best speaker.

AngryHippie

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

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

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

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

skelliser

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

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.

Mr.Nice Guy

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.

murphaph

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

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

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

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

redspider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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