Gay Mitchell nearly loosing it on RTE

mike65

Near hysteria. Listening to the programme there is a chasm between the advocates which is getting wider. I can see both sides esp the YES-ers ratcheting up the rhetoric until nothing can be achived internally on this.

Mike.

Red Alert

He sounded insane. Are we seriously supposed to trust the opinion of people like that, as the yes side wanted us to?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, sinn fein are the only trustworthy force in Irish politics.

Sherifu

Shall have to listen later.

mike65

I wouldn't go that far Sherifu! Unless you want to hear the whole programme.

The tone of Mitchell was very much "how dare you defeat the force of light and goodness!?" Its a pity Jim was the sensible one.

Mike.

irish_bob

mary lou,s waffling would even drive a waffler ( ask bertie ) like gay mitchell spare

ive a theory on sinn fein and the treaty , im begining to wonder were sinn fein hoping for a yes win , that way they still got much more attention ( which is important for next yrs domestic elections which is all sinn fein really care about) having been on the no side instead of just another party in favour while at the same time had the yes side won , no one has any hard questiosn for them
now that the no,s have won , sinn fein are in the dock
im serious , they are a cynical enough bunch to do this

ixtlan

Red Alert wrote: »

He sounded insane. Are we seriously supposed to trust the opinion of people like that, as the yes side wanted us to?

Indeed as a yes voter I shudder sometimes. Gay Mitchell is usually pretty OK. It seems like a lot of the communications training these guys should have done has gone out the window.

Actually Peter Power of FF was not too bad. He's got the government message I think. Keep it calm... no kee-jerk reactions... see what happens... need time to think about it.

Unfortunately, the main political parties are probably going to implode on each other soon. Unless they can get some kind of Tallaght strategy on the EU. I doubt if this can be done though. I think we will be heading into all-out political warfare soon enough, which is going to be bad for Europe and us.

Ix

irish_bob

ixtlan wrote: »

Indeed as a yes voter I shudder sometimes. Gay Mitchell is usually pretty OK. It seems like a lot of the communications training these guys should have done has gone out the window.

Actually Peter Power of FF was not too bad. He's got the government message I think. Keep it calm... no kee-jerk reactions... see what happens... need time to think about it.

Unfortunately, the main political parties are probably going to implode on each other soon. Unless they can get some kind of Tallaght strategy on the EU. I doubt if this can be done though. I think we will be heading into all-out political warfare soon enough, which is going to be bad for Europe and us.

Ix

and good for who , yes , sinn fein

PrivateEye

The Yes side are.....

1) Treating us like idiots: We voted no because we didn't 'understand' what was before us apparently, not because we didn't like it.

2) refusing to admit Lisbon is dead. Cowen should have the bollocks to just follow the will of the people.

3) Undemocratic. If it was a Yes vote...that would be that. Why are they trying to undermine the people?

they won in a few leafy suburbs, and a few hometowns.
They can NOT disrespect the will of the Irish people.
Theres an air of Stalinism to it all, "vote the right way, or pay"

gerbilgranny

I heard him yesterday, and was shocked by his words and his attitude.

Yes, of course there were people who didn't fully understand what the Treaty was about, but in my opinion, people in that category who went out to vote would be just as likely to vote 'Yes'. After all, if the three main political parties - if the Government AND the 'Opposition' agree that 'Yes' is the right way to vote, then they're probably, on balance, correct - yes?

I was going to vote 'Yes', precisely for the above reason, but then I changed my mind - WHEN I studied the matter in more depth.

So don't just dismiss the 'No' vote as the result of ignorance, Mr Mitchell!

And also - the Government and Fine Gael etc etc, urged us to go out and vote.

Makes a joke of their belief in democracy - clearly, if they could have gotten away without having a referendum, they would have.

murphaph

gerbilgranny wrote: »

I heard him yesterday, and was shocked by his words and his attitude.

Yes, of course there were people who didn't fully understand what the Treaty was about, but in my opinion, people in that category who went out to vote would be just as likely to vote 'Yes'. After all, if the three main political parties - if the Government AND the 'Opposition' agree that 'Yes' is the right way to vote, then they're probably, on balance, correct - yes?

I was going to vote 'Yes', precisely for the above reason, but then I changed my mind - WHEN I studied the matter in more depth.

So don't just dismiss the 'No' vote as the result of ignorance, Mr Mitchell!

And also - the Government and Fine Gael etc etc, urged us to go out and vote.

Makes a joke of their belief in democracy - clearly, if they could have gotten away without having a referendum, they would have.

+1. Loads of my mates said to me "I haven't a clue what it's all about but I suppose I'll vote yes". I'd say there may have been even MORE 'yes' voters in this frame of mind than 'no' voters!

The treaty should be considered dead if the EU is as democratic as we're led to believe. The people have voted in just 3 referenda on further EU integration in the last 3 years and all three countries (which are traditionally very pro-Europe!!!) have voted NO! No means NO! What don't the powers that be not understand about this? Europeans are traditional people and we don't want further integration.

Put a simple question to all 486 million of us..."do you want the EU to integrate further?"

CtrlSource

mike65 wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far Sherifu! Unless you want to hear the whole programme.

The tone of Mitchell was very much "how dare you defeat the force of light and goodness!?" Its a pity Jim was the sensible one.

Mike.

Jim was a true gent and a better politician. Have always viewed his brother as being something of a hot head and upstart. But then, i don't usually vote FG

mike65

Gay = Dublin Oympics.

Enough said.

Mike.

Sophievdp

What exactly did he say? I can probably guess, I'm just wondering if it's as idiotic as I think it is.

crazy chester

Anyone got a link to the interview to post up so we who missed it can have a listen?

ixtlan

murphaph wrote: »

The treaty should be considered dead if the EU is as democratic as we're led to believe. The people have voted in just 3 referenda on further EU integration in the last 3 years and all three countries (which are traditionally very pro-Europe!!!) have voted NO! No means NO! What don't the powers that be not understand about this? Europeans are traditional people and we don't want further integration.

Put a simple question to all 486 million of us..."do you want the EU to integrate further?"

As Shakespeare would say, "there's the rub". If you put the question to the 486 million and they voted yes, would you accept Lisbon? They probably would approve but then we'd be back to concerns about the super-state and why should a few hundred million continential Europeans dictate policy to us. In fact more people voted in favour of the Constitution than against taking into account all the countries that passed it.

Likewise for the democratic deficit. Would people really be happy with a Europe-wide vote for the council president or the foreign affairs representative. Of course not. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the people complaining about them not being elected would rather the roles did not exist at all. Which is fair enough too, but it confuses the debate when we complain about their unelectability, especially when they have no policy-making power. The day we do have an elected president is probably the day to really get worried about the super-state.

Ix.

ixtlan

Sophievdp wrote: »

What exactly did he say? I can probably guess, I'm just wondering if it's as idiotic as I think it is.

Actually I can't remember. I would normally be on his side, but it was the whole tone that was wrong. Mary-Lou sounded like the person you wanted negotiating in Europe and Gay sounded like a fringe element.

ix.

RedPlanet

Where can i hear it?
Was it on radio or tv?

mike65

www.rte.ie/radio1/saturdayview

Mike.

pburns

Just heard him in passing from another room...

One of the things he said was that it was up to the 'No' side to come up with a policy as to what to do next. I thought that was ******* disgraceful because as an elected representative he and his cronies are the ones who should be taking the next steps and respecting the will of the people. If there is no Plan B there feckin' well should have been - a 'no' vote was always a strong possibility...

mike65 wrote: »

Gay = Dublin Oympics.
Enough said.
Mike.

Yep, my thoughts exactly, I was going to bring it up myself. Idiot!

RedPlanet

I think the media have done a spectacularly miserable job of this affair.
It's not SF nor Libertas that Gay Mitchell and the elistist media really need to be talking to, rather it's the people of Ireland that voted no.
All those no voters, are not voting for SF and Libertas.

Voipjunkie

Heard the rant earlier

The thing that struck me was that I never heard SF mention abortion or euthanasia during the campaign the issues that SF raised as far as I ever heard from them were the loss of a commisioner the QMV and the Nuetrality/militarisation and tax

And it appears that the commsioner aspect they may be pushing at an open door according to RTEs Europe correspondent that the reduction of commisioners is not that popular anywhere and the lisbon treaty allows for a reversal of that.

A protocol on Nuetrality and Militarism clearly exempting Ireland from common defence and another clearly stating that tax is outside the remit of the treaty would go along way to addressing the issues SF raised.

robindch

PrivateEye wrote: »

We voted no because we didn't 'understand' what was before us apparently, not because we didn't like it.

Congrats -- you're the only no-voter I know of who "understood" the Treaty -- well done!

ircoha

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Heard the rant earlier

The thing that struck me was that I never heard SF mention abortion or euthanasia during the campaign the issues that SF raised as far as I ever heard from them were the loss of a commisioner the QMV and the Nuetrality/militarisation and tax

And it appears that the commsioner aspect they may be pushing at an open door according to RTEs Europe correspondent that the reduction of commisioners is not that popular anywhere and the lisbon treaty allows for a reversal of that.

A protocol on Nuetrality and Militarism clearly exempting Ireland from common defence and another clearly stating that tax is outside the remit of the treaty would go along way to addressing the issues SF raised.

Lisbon or Nice 2?

thecoolfreak

Makes a joke of their belief in democracy - clearly, if they could have gotten away without having a referendum, they would have

Actually the government could have got away without a referendum. The Treaty did not change the the essential scope or objectives of the existing EU and so according to the Crotty decision could have been passed by Statute. However the Government decided to hold a referendum because it was the right thing to do and because if thedidn't there would be uproar

billy the squid

Which side was Nell McCafferty advocating. Gay mitchells hissy fit was nothing compared to her one on Newstalk on Friday.

SeanW

PrivateEye wrote: »

The Yes side are.....

1) Treating us like idiots: We voted no because we didn't 'understand' what was before us apparently, not because we didn't like it.

Are you sure? How many No voters read the Treaty, reviewed the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill (which was technically the point of the referendum) and said to themselves: "I have a problem with provision X of part Y of the Porposed Amendment" or "I don't think Article X, Section Y, Subsection Z of the Treaty presents the right way forward for Ireland or the people of Europe" before putting an X in the "No" box?

3) Undemocratic. If it was a Yes vote...that would be that. Why are they trying to undermine the people?

It IS being respected. But a lot of Europeans are pissed off with us now and some people are now considering a "two-speed Europe" solution.

tolosenc

It's hardly undemocratic to put it to us again, after all, only ~28% of the electorate voted no.

Cumpolsary poll atentendence ftw!

axer

SeanW wrote: »

Are you sure? How many No voters read the Treaty, reviewed the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill (which was technically the point of the referendum) and said to themselves: "I have a problem with provision X of part Y of the Porposed Amendment" or "I don't think Article X, Section Y, Subsection Z of the Treaty presents the right way forward for Ireland or the people of Europe" before putting an X in the "No" box?

How many did the same before putting an X in the "yes" box?

It is an absolute disgrace that Sarkozy is calling for the rest of the countries to continue ratify the treaty in order to group everyone against us. Fu'cking wanker. I am glad we voted no to show up this federalistic dictatorship that is starting to emerge - "if you are not with us then you are against us!". I am finding it hard to stay pro-europe the more I think of where the EU is going.

The cheek of Gay to attack 25% of the people for this "mess" - just because they did not give the answer he wanted. I think that shows that it is hard to believe that those people are supposed to be representing us. Shame on him.

BizzyLizzy

thecoolfreak wrote: »

Actually the government could have got away without a referendum.

Not possible. The Irish people's right to an referendum is enshrined in our constitution and we have Dev to thank for it!


The majority of the Irish are pro-Europe, but after 800 years of foreign rule it is natural we will reject further “invasion” from Europe unless it is very clear to us what we are accepting. As it is, we are fighting a daily battle to survive the current invasion of Europeans and non-European “refugees”. Our jobs are being lost to those who will work for less and our taxes are keeping others in a manor in which few of us have had the opportunity to exploit. The sick part of it all is that while our government is busy dolloping the “Céad Mile Fálte” over all and sundry (as well as allowing the importation of enough “ethnic” foods and luxuries to cause an Australian customs officer to keel over with a heart attack!), it is in total denial of the unease and discomfort of the people they are supposed to represent. And we are supposed to trust our public representatives to make the best decisions for us?!!

In my opinion, the NO vote was as much a vote of no confidence in the government as it was a rejection of further dictatorship from Europe.

BizzyLizzy

BizzyLizzy wrote: »

Not possible. The Irish people's right to an referendum is enshrined in our constitution and we have Dev to thank for it!

I think it was mentioned on another thread that they could go along with it, although they would then risk a court case based on the Crotty ruling.

BizzyLizzy

Myth wrote: »

I think it was mentioned on another thread that they could go along with it, although they would then risk a court case based on the Crotty ruling.

Spot on:

"Supreme Court decision in Crotty v. Ireland in 1987, exposes Irish governments to significant political and legal risks if they do not refer significant European Union Treaties to a referendum, regardless of the appropriateness of doing so. "

thecoolfreak

Myth wrote: »

I think it was mentioned on another thread that they could go along with it, although they would then risk a court case based on the Crotty ruling.

Exactly, they could have passed this Treaty by Statute as it doesn't change the esseintial objectives of the Union. The Crotty decision allows for this and therefore no referendum would be needed. However, by doing this the governemnt could have opened itself to a case similar to Crotty and if the Supreme Court were to rule that the Treaty couldn't have been passed by Statute then we and the EU would be in limbo. Remember though that Crotty was decided by a bare 3:2 majority and that decision could easily be reversed if a similar action were taken.

iPoker

obl wrote: »

It's hardly undemocratic to put it to us again, after all, only ~28% of the electorate voted no.

Cumpolsary poll atentendence ftw!

compulsory vote? he have the right, but not the obligation, to vote....constitutionally. Moreover, not voting is preferable to a "yes" or "no" vote by someone who doesn't understand what they are voting for.

CerebralCortex

SeanW wrote: »

Are you sure? How many No voters read the Treaty, reviewed the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill (which was technically the point of the referendum) and said to themselves: "I have a problem with provision X of part Y of the Porposed Amendment" or "I don't think Article X, Section Y, Subsection Z of the Treaty presents the right way forward for Ireland or the people of Europe" before putting an X in the "No" box?

The same question could be asked of the Yes campaign.

mike65

Bump, still in :eek:OMG:eek: mode now on Today Fm with Matt Cooper

Mike.

CtrlSource

Wonder if someone could fix him up with horse tranquilizers or something

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

It's hardly undemocratic to put it to us again, after all, only ~28% of the electorate voted no.

Cumpolsary poll atentendence ftw!

Ok, and are you pushing for a re vote in nice2 then? It was around, if not less of a turnout? Or is it just the results that you don't like?

tolosenc

iPoker wrote: »

compulsory vote? he have the right, but not the obligation, to vote....constitutionally. Moreover, not voting is preferable to a "yes" or "no" vote by someone who doesn't understand what they are voting for.

Yeah, but the number of people who don't vote out of pure laziness is disgraceful. Just add an extra box to the ballot labelled "Abstain" - and then put like a €1500 fine for unreturned polling cards. Of course, excusable by doctor's note etc

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok, and are you pushing for a re vote in nice2 then? It was around, if not less of a turnout? Or is it just the results that you don't like?

I'm merely pointing out that to call it undemocratic is a stretch of the truth. If all of the aforementioned lazy people would have voted yes - then in reality we have a 72%-28% situation, with the 28% winning.

And it's rather a different story to vote to un-change the constitution.

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

Yeah, but the number of people who don't vote out of pure laziness is disgraceful. Just add an extra box to the ballot labelled "Abstain" - and then put like a €1500 fine for unreturned polling cards. Of course, excusable by doctor's note etc

I actually agree with you here and have said this before.

I'm merely pointing out that to call it undemocratic is a stretch of the truth. If all of the aforementioned lazy people would have voted yes - then in reality we have a 72%-28% situation, with the 28% winning.

And it's rather a different story to vote to un-change the constitution.

Dont think of un-changing it. Think of it as just changing again, admittedly in reverse. I too was just making the point that people are just ,generally, using the turnout issue to force a re-vote on a result their unhappy about. If you truly believe you're asking for a re-vote on turnout, not on the result, I'd expect you to be equally outraged about Nice2 passing, no offence.

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

I actually agree with you here and have said this before.



Dont think of un-changing it. Think of it as just changing again, admittedly in reverse. I too was just making the point that people are just ,generally, using the turnout issue to force a re-vote on a result their unhappy about. If you truly believe you're asking for a re-vote on turnout, not on the result, I'd expect you to be equally outraged about Nice2 passing, no offence.

if more than 50% of the people on this island call for a revote on anything how is that undemocratic?