Lisbon: Mícheál Martin destroys British eurosceptic on Pat Kenny

Rebelheart

Did anybody hear Mícheál Martin on Today with Pat Kenny this morning?

He was ruthless. I've never seen him with such an edge. He was debating in favour of Lisbon against some guy who had an English accent and was named 'Nigel'. A google when I got home this evening reveals this Nigel guy to be somebody named Nigel Farage who is leader of a political party named United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

He made this Farage guy to seem like a complete loony. Apparently, Farage wants to scrap the Good Friday Agreement and force all nationalists in the north to take an oath of allegiance to the British crown. Farage also rejects the idea of global warming, wants to abolish CAP and loads more stuff. Anyway, that's by-the-by, but Martin succeeded in portraying him as a rabid British eurosceptic naturally disposed to hating the Irish - "if Nigel had his way all Irish people in Britain would be subject to border controls" - who was using the Lisbon 'No' vote to campaign against the EU.

Have a listen to the podcast here: http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-090909-28m17s-todaywithpatkenny.mp3


For years I have admired Martin, primarily due to the smoking ban but also because he regularly appears in interviews in Irish and I admire that open-mindedness and cultural intelligence greatly. However, until today I thought he was just a nice guy with a charming smile and a bit of culture.

If only the 'Yes' side had even one other politician as informed, passionately pro-European, lucid and refreshing. Most of all, I really shared the reasons why we should vote 'Yes', why Ireland's future is with the EU and why it would be a backward step to reject the EU and align with British eurosceptics. It is long overdue that a public figure has articulated this, and passionately too. Táim an-bhuíoch díot, Mícheál Ó Máirtín.


PS: I loved the line Martin had when Farage said "you can't stop him [Martin], can you", to which Martin said, "well, you can't anyway".

FlutterinBantam

yep heard that interview/debate... Martin was impressive, put the saddle on the guy and rode him to death(metaphorically of course).

Kenny wasn't exactly impartial on the time given to each guy.

Martin just kept talking and wiped poor Nigel out.

Dinner

Martin did well I think. Although Farage is a bit of a soft target to debate against, it's impossible for him to open his mouth without a lie falling out.

sceptre

Moved to the EU forum.

P. Breathnach

Rebelheart wrote: »

... He made this Farage guy to seem like a complete loony...

I thought Farage did that with no external assistance.

Daftendirekt

Thanks for posting OP.

I have to admit this is one of the very few times I've listened to Martin debate anything. I thought he handled it pretty well.

One criticism though: he was great with the 'keep Ireland at the heart of the EU' rhetoric, but this was the biggest weakness of the Yes campaign last year. True, he made Farage look like a moron, but Fargage helped him out a lot with that.

In the post linked to in my sig, Sink lists ten very specific advantages of the Lisbon treaty. Martin had plenty of opportunity to mention something like the increase in power to the Parliament, or the Citizens' Initiative when Farage was harping on about how Lisbon would destroy democracy in Europe, and take away Irish independence. So why didn't he?

I think the Yes side debaters really need to focus on the advantages of the treaty itself this time round. I do agree that a Yes vote will be good for Ireland's position in Europe; from an objective point of view, simply asserting this repeatedly makes it seem like this is the best anyone can come up with as an argument for a Yes vote. Which, understandably, makes people cynical.

thebman

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

yep heard that interview/debate... Martin was impressive, put the saddle on the guy and rode him to death(metaphorically of course).

Kenny wasn't exactly impartial on the time given to each guy.

Martin just kept talking and wiped poor Nigel out.

I don't see why he would give equal time to the UKIP guy TBH.

I'm sick of seeing deceitful people being given time to shout their lies.

Keewee6

thebman wrote: »

I don't see why he would give equal time to the UKIP guy TBH.

I'm sick of seeing deceitful people being given time to shout their lies.

personally i have no time for coir or the UKIP

ei.sdraob

lol priceless

"can you explain who they are? we send people to brussels, yee send people to brussels..."

rofl, well done pat

ei.sdraob

Keewee6 wrote: »

personally i have no time for coir or the UKIP

im still waiting for you to provide 1 reason to vote note thats based on anything in the treaty

---

@5-6mins

did the UKIP accuse EU for balkans war! woa! just woa!

someone should point to the nice wars in Iraq and Afganistan that his country jumped in after the americans despite mass protests from the people

---

@8:20

"Nigel, fundamental agenda that your party has to be fair, is that you
* dont believe in the European union,
* you would like to scrap European union"
* just as much as you would like to scrap the Good Friday agreement
...
* you would force the northern nationalists to swear allegiance to the Crown
* you dont believe in climate change"


woa! nail meet hammer


for all the nonsense from about Sarcozy from the NO side,

here we have an Englishman using Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty to further his agenda

who would have imagined such a day


/

Keewee6

i dont think i can convince sorry about that

Judgement Day

Jesus OP you are easily impressed! Micheal Martin comes across as a schoolboy, always has, always will. The idea of Micheal Martin destroying anybody reminds me of Denis Healy (the British Labour MP) who described an attack on him by Geoffrey Howe (the British Conservative MP) in the House of Commons as like being savaged by a dead sheep! Micheal Martin is an overbearing FF prig.

Vote NO, early and often!

bill_ashmount

Why did Mícheál Martin attempt to wipe the balkans war from history? lol

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Why did Mícheál Martin wipe the balkans war from history? lol

One can only presume he was talking about wars within the EU?

bill_ashmount

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

One can only presume he was talking about wars within the EU?

Then why did he say European continent?

bill_ashmount

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

One can only presume he was talking about wars within the EU?

Still, nice that the genocide in the Balkans can give the likes of yourself and Mr. Farage a little bit of a lol...

It doesn't give me a lol, I find the arrogance of Martin wiping it from history to build his argument to be a massive insult to all those that died.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Then why did he say European continent?

You'd have to ask him. On the bright side Mr. Farage and yourself got a nice little debating point out of the Balkans genocide.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

It doesn't give me a lol, I find the arrogance of Martin wiping it from history to build his argument to be a massive insult to all those that died.

Yes I've removed that from my OP... bad taste... more of a debating point than a lol... as above

bill_ashmount

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You'd have to ask him. On the bright side Mr. Farage and yourself got a nice little debating point out of the Balkans genocide.

lol, I don't need to ask him, I quoted what he said, you attempted to change his quote to the EU to suit your argument.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

lol, I don't need to ask him, I quoted what he said, you attempted to change his quote to the EU to suit your argument.

No, I presumed, without having seen the quote, when you told me what he actually said I said you'd have to ask him.

You didn't actually quote anything about the European Continent before my initial response as per:

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Why did Mícheál Martin attempt to wipe the balkans war from history? lol

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

One can only presume he was talking about wars within the EU?

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Then why did he say European continent?

Your arguments against the Lisbon treaty are getting more persuasive by the day. :rolleyes:

FutureTaoiseach

From my reading of it the texts were about half-half for-against.

Thomas828

It was a bit unfair of Pat, putting a half-wit like Nigel who knows precious little about the Irish against Mr Martin. Someone from Sinn Fein would have made a better case for voting no.

ei.sdraob

Thomas828 wrote: »

It was a bit unfair of Pat, putting a half-wit like Nigel who knows precious little about the Irish against Mr Martin. Someone from Sinn Fein would have made a better case for voting no.

If he doesnt know anything about the Irish

then why the **** is himself and his party getting involved in Ireland

who in Ireland does he represent and speak for

FutureTaoiseach

I assume from the anti-UKIP remarks on this thread that the yes campaigners will also call on pro-Lisbon parties in the European Parliament to stay out of our referendum debate?

BlitzKrieg

does that include the ones who have elected representatives from ireland?

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I assume from the anti-UKIP remarks on this thread that the yes campaigners will also call on pro-Lisbon parties in the European Parliament to stay out of our referendum debate?

Sure will as soon as they start appearing on my TV and shoving stuff through my letterbox.

Steviemak

marco_polo wrote: »

Sure will as soon as they start appearing on my TV and shoving stuff through my letterbox.

And when they say the Irish are not welcome in their country or tell my friends in the north that they are not Irish and should be forced to declare allegiance to the British crown.....

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

does that include the ones who have elected representatives from ireland?

Yes. It's an Irish referendum campaign, and should be left to the Irish people to address. Non-Irish members of these groups have no mandate from the Irish people.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes. It's an Irish referendum campaign, and should be left to the Irish people to address. Non-Irish members of these groups have no mandate from the Irish people.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62048571&postcount=173


well that answers your own question here so

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62048602&postcount=174

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62048571&postcount=173


well that answers your own question here so

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62048602&postcount=174

I suppose it does. I meant from your point of view, what was the problem?

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes. It's an Irish referendum campaign, and should be left to the Irish people to address. Non-Irish members of these groups have no mandate from the Irish people.

Is there a problem with an Irish political party receiving funding from the European political party it is a part of in your view? I completely agree that the non-Irish members of these parties shouldn't be involved much in the debate precisely because they lack a mandate from the Irish people and as such can't be expected to act in the best interests of Ireland, but funding given to an Irish party doesn't pose the same problem.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I suppose it does. I meant from your point of view, what was the problem?

my problem with them



is that

* unlike all the main Irish political parties supporting Lisbon they are not elected here
* unlike Intel or Ryanair and other companies supporting Lisbon they are not an employer or taxpayer here


they are not a body/company/organisation here in Ireland and dont have a single Irish member

NO side complain about Sarcozy etc going on about the treaty

yet here we have an organisation from outside the country with no members in this country telling the us what to do

do you see anything wrong with that picture?

:pac:

FutureTaoiseach

nesf wrote: »

Is there a problem with an Irish political party receiving funding from the European political party it is a part of in your view? I completely agree that the non-Irish members of these parties shouldn't be involved much in the debate precisely because they lack a mandate from the Irish people and as such can't be expected to act in the best interests of Ireland, but funding given to an Irish party doesn't pose the same problem.

I actually oppose European parliament groups funneling money in our referendum campaign. I see this as an internal referendum and want outside politicians to keep out of this issue. I am also concerned that the spirit (if not necessarily the letter) of the McKenna judgement is being violated when you have European Parliament groups funding campaigns in member states because ultimately, European taxpayers' money is where that money comes from. In that context, does it not undermine at least the spirit of the McKenna judgement in terms of taxpayers' money not being supposed to favour one side over another.

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I actually oppose European parliament groups funneling money in our referendum campaign. I see this as an internal referendum and want outside politicians to keep out of this issue. I am also concerned that the spirit (if not necessarily the letter) of the McKenna judgement is being violated when you have European Parliament groups funding campaigns in member states because ultimately, European taxpayers' money is where that money comes from. In that context, does it not undermine at least the spirit of the McKenna judgement in terms of taxpayers' money not being supposed to favour one side over another.

But that money is there specifically to help fund member groups to fight battles concerning the EU. I'd agree if this money wasn't specifically for this purpose but it is. It's a perfectly legitimate use of the group's funds.

bill_ashmount

marco_polo wrote: »

Your arguments against the Lisbon treaty are getting more persuasive by the day. :rolleyes:

Once more for you.

All i did was point out that he lied. We are talking about his statement not the lisbon treaty.

Why don't you address the fact that he lied instead of puting in a :rolleyes:

marco_polo

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Once more for you.

All i did was point out that he lied. We are talking about his statement not the lisbon treaty.

Why don't you address the fact that he lied instead of puting in a :rolleyes:

Because you are being pedantic, and attempting making huge deal about yet another non issue. Since the debate was about the EU and not the entire geographical land mass that is called Europe there is little is no doubt that the intent of the statement was to highlight to the lack of wars between EU member states which was the principal reason for its foundation. To try and paint that as some sort of historal revisionism or denial of the Balkan Wars is astoundingly crass.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Because you are being pedantic, and attempting making huge deal about yet another non issue. Since the debate was about the EU and not the entire geographical land mass that is called Europe there is little is no doubt that the intent of the statement was to highlight to the lack of wars between EU member states which was the principal reason for its foundation. To try and paint that as some sort of historal revisionism or denial of the Balkan Wars is astoundingly crass.

Not that astounding, when you see where it's coming from.

Incidentally, I personally feel that giving the EU an ability to concoct and conduct a foreign policy is a good response by the EU to accusations that it just 'stood by' during the Balkans.

If, there were ever such horror again post Lisbon, hopefully the foreign policy tools given to us by Lisbon will help prevent, or at least mitigate it.

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

was to highlight to the lack of wars between EU member states which was the principal reason for its foundation. To try and paint that as some sort of historal revisionism or denial of the Balkan Wars is astoundingly crass.

not only that but UK have dived in head first alongside the yanks into Iraq and Afghanistan

thebman

Meh the EU loses out either way in that scenario. If they get involved, they are a superstate imposing themselves on other countries just like the US and have no businesses doing so and this is exactly what the Euroskeptics feared.

If they don't get involved, then why didn't they get involved? Isn't the point of the EU to stop wars?

Either way the Euroskeptics have an angle which is all they are looking for. If two people are determined to blow holes in each others nations then nobody will be able to stop them from at least having a go. It is less likely in the EU because they is better co-operation, that is all.

Rebelheart

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I assume from the anti-UKIP remarks on this thread that the yes campaigners will also call on pro-Lisbon parties in the European Parliament to stay out of our referendum debate?

Well, as somebody who is passionately intellectually and culturally European I am very, very happy that rightwing British eurosceptics are in Ireland advocating that we, the unoccupied Irish people, vote 'No' to Lisbon.

It is about as honest as we can get here. If anything sums up the effective pro-Britishness of the anti-European 'No' campaigners it is this alliance with the very culture, the very ethnicity and the very political experiment which has a long, verifiable, consistent and ingrained hatred of the Irish people throughout, at least, the past four centuries.

The EU has broken that dehumanising dichotomy (for most Irish people). The EU has been, and remains, a source of our freedom from the numerical strength, more cohesive tribalism and stronger nationalist myths of the British people. The 'No' campaigners collectively cannot see this and instead anchor themselves to an Irish nationalism that is, in reality, deeply anglocentric in its ideas, policies, thinking and inspiration. In a sentence, that is their entire downfall.

That alliance between British eurosceptics and Irish 'No' campaigners is a 'Yes' campaigners dream scenario. It shows, quite clearly, that the conception of Irishness held by the 'No' campaigners is inherently connected with Ireland being close to British culture, or more accurately, British domination. Let's just call it the "British Isles" school on Ireland's political future. Thank you for your honesty, 'No' campaigners.


The sooner Ireland is made a proper European country rather than the pathetic, extraordinarily unhealthy, anglocentric, Brit-copying, eternally unoriginal, corrupt polity that it currently is the better. By all means let the EU give us handouts again, but this time let the EU have the cop-on to place a rake of conditions upon that money, conditions such as imprisonment for corruption in public office. And much else. No more handy EU money, please. One of those conditions should be higher taxes to fund better services, such as a French-style health system. We are currently living in cloud cuckoo land on the entire issue of income taxes.


PS: Having said all of that, I get the distinct impression that most of the 'Yes' campaigners are simply supporting the EU for the money and have no more cultural and intellectual open-mindedness than the average Cóir campaigner, or British eurosceptic for that matter. A sad thing for me to say, but nothing I have heard from any 'Yes' campaigner has convinced me that they are ideologically supportive of the EU and breaking the link to Britain. Mícheál Martin was the notable exception in the above interview.

drawderm

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_lisbontreaty.xml

I dare anyone to listen to this ****!!! VOTE NO TO LISBON!!!

drawderm

English nigel is talking good stuff actually...

Any Irish citizen saying the Brits should keep out of this should think about this,
We are voting for even closer ties with the UK, as well as France, Germany etc. Ireland is the only country in Europe that is allowed to hold a referendum.
This is because out Constitution which the men and women of 1916 died for gives us that right and protects us. If we vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty then we never get another vote on Europe and our constitution is then inferior to the new EU constitution or (Lisbon Treaty)

France and the Dutch did and they voted no. Their Voice was ignored.
The only country that can keep the voice of the people of Europe is Ireland.
We have voted No, France has voted No, the Dutch have voted No.

Obama was elected President of America with 52.3% of the vote, can you imagine if someone sugggested that they re run that election as well!!! because a small minority in power don't like the result?

But yet we ARE TOLD we must vote again!!! Please think!!!

VOTE NO TO LISBON, PROTECT IRISH AND EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY!!!

drawderm

OK... Intel or Ryanair, you forgot to remind everyone that these two companies refuse to recognise Trade unions. Very interesting that these are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty lol

VOTE NO, Protect Democracy in IRELAND

FutureTaoiseach

drawderm wrote: »

OK... Intel or Ryanair, you forgot to remind everyone that these two companies refuse to recognise Trade unions. Very interesting that these are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty lol

VOTE NO, Protect Democracy in IRELAND

Especially in a context of ECJ's rulings such as Viking, where the Charter's limitations on workers' rights (Article 28) were cited. Aha.

wrote:

Any Irish citizen saying the Brits should keep out of this should think about this,We are voting for even closer ties with the UK, as well as France, Germany etc. Ireland is the only country in Europe that is allowed to hold a referendum.This is because out Constitution which the men and women of 1916 died for gives us that right and protects us. If we vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty then we never get another vote on Europe and our constitution is then inferior to the new EU constitution or (Lisbon Treaty)

I have some sympathy for that view, but in the context of a referendum campaign, outside involvement just plays into the other side's hands. In the last referendum campaign, the Dublin Philosophical Society invited (of all people) Jean Marie Le Pen to take part in a debate on Lisbon. It was an obvious attempt to smear the no campaign with fascism, and the invitation was not accepted. While Nigel Farage is no fascist, he does come from a country that used to rule Ireland, and in that context, and despite good relations in the post-Troubles period, that means there's still a minority here that clings to an anti-English mindset that some on the yes side could try to exploit. One thing is clear. The yes camp rarely talk about the Treaty in terms of individual provisions, whereas the no side rarely don't talk about it. The Irish people should decide based on what is in this Treaty - not some fuzzy, psychobabble about being at the 'heart of Europe', which is a Narnia that has no tangible meaning to me.

K-9

drawderm wrote: »

OK... Intel or Ryanair, you forgot to remind everyone that these two companies refuse to recognise Trade unions. Very interesting that these are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty lol

VOTE NO, Protect Democracy in IRELAND

Interesting ICTU and SIPTU are, despite being extremely pissed of over the Pensions levy and the partnership talks.

nesf

drawderm wrote: »

OK... Intel or Ryanair, you forgot to remind everyone that these two companies refuse to recognise Trade unions. Very interesting that these are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty lol

VOTE NO, Protect Democracy in IRELAND

Quit putting a slogan at the end of all your posts please.

meglome

drawderm wrote: »

OK... Intel or Ryanair, you forgot to remind everyone that these two companies refuse to recognise Trade unions. Very interesting that these are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty lol

VOTE NO, Protect Democracy in IRELAND

Yeah those bastards in Ryanair and Intel, who do they think they are providing thousands of jobs, then forcing people to work there... oh wait.

anonymous_joe

meglome wrote: »

Yeah those bastards in Ryanair and Intel, who do they think they are providing thousands of jobs, then forcing people to work there... oh wait.

Yeah! Paying them too. The fupping backstards.

I always think it's nice seeing our politicians tearing amateurs apart. It's a bit like football - you never realise how good someone is until you see them competing with someone at a lower level. McDowell versus Gerry Adams springs to mind as well.

The irony of a No Campaign that claims to speak for the leaders of the 1916 Rising being in bed with UKIP - an anti-republican party is basically epic.

FutureTaoiseach

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Yeah! Paying them too. The fupping backstards.

I always think it's nice seeing our politicians tearing amateurs apart. It's a bit like football - you never realise how good someone is until you see them competing with someone at a lower level. McDowell versus Gerry Adams springs to mind as well.

The irony of a No Campaign that claims to speak for the leaders of the 1916 Rising being in bed with UKIP - an anti-republican party is basically epic.

1916 was about independence. It was not about swapping the British Empire for the European Empire. I agree UKIP should stay out. But so should Sarkozy and Merkel and the hundreds of MEPs from other countries converging on Ireland to demand we vote yes. That too is interference.

meglome

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

1916 was about independence. It was not about swapping the British Empire for the European Empire.

Oh dear jesus. The British took whatever they wanted from Ireland, the EU has done so such thing, it has given us a **** load of money for free. The EU has never forced us to do anything and has done everything through negotiation. Do you get sick of spouting this same crap day in and day out? Really I'd hate myself if I told so many lies.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I agree UKIP should stay out.

With the damage they'll do to the No campaign I'd imagine you would.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But so should Sarkozy and Merkel and the hundreds of MEPs from other countries converging on Ireland to demand we vote yes. That too is interference.

Maybe you can give me a list of all these 'hundreds' of MEP's coming here to demand a Yes vote? Because if I had to guess from your usual posting I'd say you're making it up.