O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

K-9

nacho libre wrote: »

as regards the debate, Harkin came off best. Harkin was confident in herself, kept to the details of the treaty - she refuted every false claim that was brought up and didn't feel the need to engage in mudslinging.

Have to say she was brilliant. I wrote her off and I'm in her constituency.

Ganley quoted the Referendum Commission on the "Vote Yes for jobs" slogans.

She quoted the Commission on taxation etc.

He left himself wide open and she seized on it. Ganley couldn't say a thing. "You can't pick and choose Declan".

Sam Vimes

nacho libre wrote: »

is this fact or opinion?
did it damage the French and Dutch when they voted no to the EU constitution? were they considered as Euro sceptics?

It's opinion. I find it quite hard to give facts about possible future events, otherwise I'd be buying a lot of lotto tickets. As has been said, the French and the Dutch were able to explain why they voted no and get amendments, despite the whole 'carbon copy' bollocks being thrown around. They also haven't voted no to three EU treaties which we will have if we vote no again. The French and the Dutch objected to state-like references where we object to QMV and loss of vetos and EU law superceding ours (it already does) and being forced to raise our corporation tax and a plethora of other stuff that we're terrified our European neighbours are going to force on us through this evil document that we think is deliberately designed to be incomprehensible to hide things from us...........sounds pretty euro sceptic to me

jank

PeakOutput wrote: »

anywher ei can get this debate online besides rte player? im in the states and rte player is region restricted

I watched it from NZ so you should be ok. Only some things are restricted.

From what I hear MOL bully boy tactics have done untold damage to the yes side. This thing is swinging fast to the NO side but will it swing fast enough...
It will be very close, a lot closer than the polls say

OldJay

jank wrote: »

From what I hear MOL bully boy tactics have done untold damage to the yes side

You heard exaggerated reports so. No-one expected any other demeanour from him. He was there to argue on economic tenets of the Treaty and basically did the job in proving that the claims that Ireland loses a Commissioner and has no say in its own taxation policy were bunkum. The mud-slinging between the two of them had been going on all day (in the radio debate on Today FM) and Ganley opted for this tone just as much as O'Leary did.

jank

Justind wrote: »

You heard exaggerated reports so. No-one expected any other demeanour from him. He was there to argue on economic tenets of the Treaty and basically did the job in proving that the claims that Ireland loses a Commissioner and has no say in its own taxation policy were bunkum. The mud-slinging between the two of them had been going on all day (in the radio debate on Today FM) and Ganley opted for this tone just as much as O'Leary did.

But MOL came out as an @sshole. Women especially will be turned off by that.

K-9

jank wrote: »

But MOL came out as an @sshole. Women especially will be turned off by that.

And some will love it! :cool:

OldJay

jank wrote: »

But MOL came out as an @sshole. Women especially will be turned off by that.

???
All preconceptions of O'Leary and Ganley are now different to the time preceding the debate? Methinks not.

sceptre

jank wrote: »

But MOL came out as an @sshole. Women especially will be turned off by that.

Well that's especially sexist. In my limited viewing and listening I thought they both came across as though they had bugs up their behinds. I suspect somehow that women or anyone else without their minds made up won't be turned off any more by O'Leary's posturing than by Ganley's but then I'm not pimping a particular point of view. You might be, you might not be, I'm not bothered either way. But more than half the people in this thread reckoned their guy won just because their guy is representing their point of view. Which makes me laugh to be honest because it's really really obvious.

Speaking generally, some of you are a lot less rational and capable of rationality than I'd thought before this whole thing but I guess there's nothing to out that like a good mudslinging effort.

Spiritoftheseventies

What is amazing was that Prime Time chose non politicians to make their case.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

What is amazing was that Prime Time chose non politicians to make their case.

yeh they call it entertainment

jank

sceptre wrote: »

Well that's especially sexist. In my limited viewing and listening I thought they both came across as though they had bugs up their behinds. I suspect somehow that women or anyone else without their minds made up won't be turned off any more by O'Leary's posturing than by Ganley's but then I'm not pimping a particular point of view. You might be, you might not be, I'm not bothered either way. But more than half the people in this thread reckoned their guy won just because their guy is representing their point of view. Which makes me laugh to be honest because it's really really obvious.

Speaking generally, some of you are a lot less rational and capable of rationality than I'd thought before this whole thing but I guess there's nothing to out that like a good mudslinging effort.

Its not sexiest at all, its just the reality of politics where different demographs vote differently. Are you telling me that MOL will have turned swing women voters with his abrasive style? No one in their right mind set would think that.
Ganley was a lot slicker and from a quick read of this thread a lot of yes people say he wiped the floor with MOL.

I am rational by the way I am not pimping any side nor am I going to vote yes or no cause I cant

Oh by the way I was really referring to the incident to where Miriam (a woman) told MOL you are a bully.....that incident alone could have cost the yes side a percent or 2. Bit of an own goal from the yes side here.

Happy Monday

jank wrote: »

Its not sexiest at all, its just the reality of politics where different demographs vote differently. Are you telling me that MOL will have turned swing women voters with his abrasive style? No one in their right mind set would think that.
Ganley was a lot slicker and from a quick read of this thread a lot of yes people say he wiped the floor with MOL.

I am rational by the way I am not pimping any side nor am I going to vote yes or no cause I cant

Oh by the way I was really referring to the incident to where Miriam (a woman) told MOL you are a bully.....that incident alone could have cost the yes side a percent or 2. Bit of an own goal from the yes side here.

MOL was a complete bully - he is so used to getting his own way at Ryanair.

Ganley was far more accomplished and poised than MOL and won the debate hands down as he would have done with fatboy Cowen or bumbling Kenny.

Irish people will too be frightened to dare to vote NO again though.

Even if they did there would still be a 3rd, 4th or 5th referendum.

nacho libre

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The French and Dutch were both able to state what their problems were with the Constitution.

so another words there was no fall out from their no vote.

nacho libre

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's opinion. .

thanks Sam. that's all i wanted to know:)

just out of curiousity, would the French and Dutch people pass the Lisbon treaty if it was put to them? if i recall correctly the French in voting for Sarkoy accepted there would be no referendum so presumably this would indicate they are happy with the Lisbon Treaty. How about the Dutch?

Chardee MacDennis

poochiem wrote: »

I see why people are reluctant to post here. Newbies are immediately suspected of being No interlopers and the debate, such as it is, quickly descends into personal attacks.

I'm undecided. voted "No" last time as I didn't trust the generalistions-over-facts nature of the yes campaign, much as it is again this time "Yes for Jobs" for example.

I've gone to meetings from both sides of the campaign. Again the Yes meetings are filled with platitudes "Europe is good for Ireland, Ireland is good for Europe" and it seems to be used as a launching pad for south-siders getting into 'politics'. The no meetings tended to have debate and included members of the audience, i was at a swimmies meeting in central hotel and one member of the audience had a real go at joe higgins over being in bed with Coir etc. The no side had copies of the treaty itself which i've not seen at any yes meeting and they can quote from it, something none of the major parties have bothered with.

It seems to be breaking down like this for me - the Lisbon treaty and campaign might well be undemocratic, it's denied my previous vote and it's denied a vote to all other europeans. It will halve Ireland's strength in europe, it does seem to open the door to centralised taxation, a joint militarisation initiative, it does seem that the import of foreign workers at lower wages cannot be stopped by the treaty as in the Lavalle case.

However maybe it is better that we sign everything over to an unaccountable european govt.? As kevin myers said recently we deserve what we get, decades of fianna fail raping the country and we keep voting them back in, surely if we are run by europe it can't be worse?

are people really stupid enough to say i didnt vote for the treaty due to the generalisations of the Yes side, yet the lies and generalisations of the No side is convincing enough to vote no.

also it very hard to refute a lie, i could easily say that the lisbon treaty means all first born sons from now on will be murdered by the EU. How do you prove that isnt true? I could use a very liberal reading of a paragraph in the treaty to back up my claim or even just say because the lisbon treaty doesnt explicitly say it protects the right of first born sons then this means they will be killed.

can you explain how the lisbon treaty is undemocratic? you are
on it again? if it was undemocratic it would have just been passed. also something like 26% of the country voted no last time, hardly a convincing number on the whole.

tech77

Plotician wrote: »

'Failed politician' is a pretty generic term these days don't you think?

Tautological, some might say.

ooter

BastardPrince wrote: »

also something like 26% of the country voted no last time, hardly a convincing number on the whole.

what percentage of the country voted FF the last time?
again,hardly a convincing number.i bet most of them regret it now...

MarkK

bayviewclose wrote: »

What is amazing was that Prime Time chose non politicians to make their case.

Well I suppose that's because there aren't many politicians on the No side.
Joe Higgins and Sinn Féin is about it, isn't it?

As opposed to Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour & Greens, all on the yes.

Spiritoftheseventies

MarkK wrote: »

Well I suppose that's because there aren't many politicians on the No side.
Joe Higgins and Sinn Féin is about it, isn't it?

As opposed to Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour & Greens, all on the yes.

Fianna Fail, Fianna Gael, Greens and Labour are always going to vote yes on premise that they will have to deal with EU in next government whatever shape that takes. And as was mentioned to me the other day, any politician hoping to advance his career in Europe afterwards is not going to jeopardize by pressing for a No vote