O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Scofflaw

Judgement Day wrote: »

You've got to be joking - were you listening to a different programme? She came off the worst of of three on the Yes side and that's some achievement when you have a smug, self-satisfied arse like Micheal Martin on the same team. In my opinion the NO's won decisively but I suppose I would say that wouldn't I , being a dyed in the wool Euro sceptic.

As far as I can make out, there were actually two entirely different shows broadcast simultaneously in the same slot. Given the same people were apparently involved, either RTE have discovered multidimensional programming, or it was quantum. I favour the former, since the people appearing on each show were clearly alternate-universe evil twins of each other.

amused,
Scofflaw

drkpower

K-9 wrote: »

Ganley throwing out FT'S Spain and unemployment line!

So one of the leading No campaigners can make this argument on a major broadcaster in a lively debate. And the other debaters manager to carry on.

Meanwhile, here, a poster makes the same argument on this forum during as lively debate. And duly gets banned.

I would have thought that that was somewhat unusual and perhaps a little unfortunate; and Im a Yes voter.

ei.sdraob

drkpower wrote: »

So one of the leading No campaigners can make this argument on a major broadcaster in a lively debate. And the other debaters manager to carry on.

Meanwhile, here, a poster makes the same argument on this forum during as lively debate. And duly gets banned.

I would have thought that that was somewhat unusual and perhaps a little unfortunate; and Im a Yes voter.

If you have an issue with moderation you know where the helpdesk is

drkpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If you have an issue with moderation you know where the helpdesk is

Clearly, my issue is with Matt Cooper; Ganley should have been ejected from the studio.

ei.sdraob

drkpower wrote: »

Clearly, my issue is with Matt Cooper; Ganley should have been ejected from the studio.

im sorry i taught you were referring to this forum moderation

my bad i need to stop speedreading

eamo127

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yep - talked about giving the EU the power to "raise it's own resources", a power it already has, a quote that's already in Nice.

Charlatan.

That's what the treaty is all about! You'll never get the chance again to vote on substantive issues re europe. Lisbon gives ultimate power to brussles as it will cement the primacy of eu law.

Can't anyone else see this glaring obvious fact?

BlitzKrieg

And if there was any doubt that Ganley has no concept of either logic or cause and effect, there can't have been any doubt after that. The man's showboating to help either his own ego or pocket and badly at that - not even a meerkat would swallow what he's coming out with.

And just to make sure there is a nail in that coffin and nobody actually believes him.

Spanish unemployment hit 7.6% in october 2006 and didnt start rising til october 2007.

the referendum vote was o the 20 feburary in 2005

To tie them together is absurd.

faceman

That has to have been one of the most entertaining Lisbon debates I have heard ever! I know people don't like O'Leary but you got to hand it to him for his straight talking. Although as much as I hate Ganley, some of his jibes at Big Mick were funny.

Kudos to Michael Martin too, hes the best of a bad bunch. I never thought anything of him until his appearance on the Late late show years ago pre smoking ban introduction. He was on a panel with all anti smoking ban lobbyist and handled it very well.

PopeBuckfastXVI

eamo127 wrote: »

That's what the treaty is all about! You'll never get the chance again to vote on substantive issues re europe. Lisbon gives ultimate power to brussles as it will cement the primacy of eu law.

Can't anyone else see this glaring obvious fact?

I can see that it's glaringly obvious that EU law already has primacy, so it's not really an issue with Lisbon.

eamo127

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I can see that it's glaringly obvious that EU law already has primacy, so it's not really an issue with Lisbon.

OK -thanks for clarifying. Don't you have a problem with that? I mean, why are you happy to hand over sovereignty to Europe? Isn't this going against all historical sanity? I'm still undecided, but here's and example of my problem.

Remember the schools fees fiasco last year - schools were suddenly presented with water bills of up to 10 grand! What did our politicians say - it's our obligation 'under europe', 'not my decision, it was an EU decision'. How can I find anyone accountable for their decisions when they pass the buck like that to a massive bureaucratic block where we represent less than 1% of the population?

Prove to me this is not as bad as it looks.

MarkK

eamo127 wrote: »

OK -thanks for clarifying. Don't you have a problem with that? I mean, why are you happy to hand over sovereignty to Europe? Isn't this going against all historical sanity? I'm still undecided, but here's and example of my problem.

We are Europe, so we are "handing over" sovereignty to ourselves.

Steviemak

eamo127 wrote: »

OK -thanks for clarifying. Don't you have a problem with that? I mean, why are you happy to hand over sovereignty to Europe? Isn't this going against all historical sanity? I'm still undecided, but here's and example of my problem.

Eamo, i'm not sure what age you are but we have agreed to these rules for 36 years now. EU law only have primacy in areas that we agreed to share sovereignty. An economic trading blocks needs to have rules that all members agree on. For example food safety standards, workers rights etc. EU law does not dictate our direct tax policy, foreign affairs, minimum wage etc. Where Ireland has not pooled sovereignty then Irish law and the Irish constitution have primacy.

The Irish people have democratically agreed to these rules at every step over the last 36 years.

K-9

Judgement Day wrote: »

You've got to be joking - were you listening to a different programme? She came off the worst of of three on the Yes side and that's some achievement when you have a smug, self-satisfied arse like Micheal Martin on the same team. In my opinion the NO's won decisively but I suppose I would say that wouldn't I , being a dyed in the wool Euro sceptic.

I was surprised by her, which probably explains.

faceman wrote: »

That has to have been one of the most entertaining Lisbon debates I have heard ever! I know people don't like O'Leary but you got to hand it to him for his straight talking. Although as much as I hate Ganley, some of his jibes at Big Mick were funny.

Kudos to Michael Martin too, hes the best of a bad bunch. I never thought anything of him until his appearance on the Late late show years ago pre smoking ban introduction. He was on a panel with all anti smoking ban lobbyist and handled it very well.

Ganley and O'Leary make great entertainment. Both well able to give and take.

In fairness to Martin, he is one of the few FF can pick, which is saying something. He was losing it a bit with Ganley at the end.

eamo127

Well, I'm 44. Here's my problem. You say we "democratically agreed to these rules at every step over the last 36 years". I don't ever remember these issues being debated then voted on. What treaty did we vote for that gave europe free reign of our fishing grounds? What about Nice? If it was democratic, why was NO not accepted back then?

Same for now. The question of democracy is that we are free only to vote yes this time else we will have to accept the consequences. That's the clear vibe I'm getting from this election.

I wonder how the folks here who are advocating YES, how do you justify this democratic deficit. I mean, how would YOU feel if your votes were cast aside and preached at to vote differrently next time? There is something eerially orwellian about all this.

ei.sdraob

eamo127 wrote: »

Well, I'm 44. Here's my problem. You say we "democratically agreed to these rules at every step over the last 36 years". I don't ever remember these issues being debated then voted on. What treaty did we vote for that gave europe free reign of our fishing grounds? What about Nice? If it was democratic, why was NO not accepted back then?
.

you were 8 when the debate to join the EU happened

probably the best decision taken by the people of this country in hindsight

and read this > facts about EU, Ireland and Fisheries


oh and the arguments this time around from NO side are identical to what we heard at Nice and Maastrich

Steviemak

eamo127 wrote: »

Well, I'm 44. Here's my problem. You say we "democratically agreed to these rules at every step over the last 36 years". I don't ever remember these issues being debated then voted on. What treaty did we vote for that gave europe free reign of our fishing grounds?

All the treaties are written down in black and white and every Irish person with a vote had the opportunity to read and vote on them at every instance. The point of referendums is that its the people's responsibility to get informed and vote accordingly. How can people have a problem with that? If one wants to be spoon fed how to vote then maybe the politicians should vote for us? Its our vote - get informed.

I'm sure more expert people than me can answer your fishing question.

eamo127

In all fairness, the link to fisheries you gave there can hardly be described as balanced by any stretch! I from a fishing town. Believe me, what used to be a thriving industry is now virtually dead. We have rules here (EU rules) that restrict fishing to 3 days a week - serious, I wouldn't mention the EU to the locals here - it drives them bananas.

The Volt

I'm harbouring quite a few doubts about these no side arguements. Must be quite a bit of pier pressure from certain organizations.

K-9

Mary Lou doesn't like the references to terrorism.

ei.sdraob

eamo127 wrote: »

In all fairness, the link to fisheries you gave there can hardly be described as balanced by any stretch! I from a fishing town. Believe me, what used to be a thriving industry is now virtually dead. We have rules here (EU rules) that restrict fishing to 3 days a week - serious, I wouldn't mention the EU to the locals here - it drives them bananas.

the site has Facts and references, can you provide any facts and links to prove them wrong?


also read this thread



tell me if Ireland was outside the EU

where would you sell your fish?

how would Ireland protect its fisheries?


oh and The Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation (KFO) is urging its members to vote 'Yes' in the forthcoming referendum

WaltKowalski

I listened to the Last Word.
I was a fan of Michael O'Leary before he joined the Yes campaign.
Now I think he's just a jackass.

The_Minister

Bam!!

Cox with the sledgehammer fist!

Rb

I don't know who was worse, Joe Higgins or Mary Lou?

I like how SF are concerned with employment, particularly considering the only employment they've aided is that of funeral directors.

Pete M.

Maybe even him more than anyone, would vote No if they twigged, realised even, where this is all leading.

It supports an investment of our futures, all of them, in something based on the promotion and development of a system based on, yes I know it sounds corny, capitalism and indeed the worst parts of it.

We had a chance during this downturn, still have, to go some other way and yet we cling onto this.

It was written during a different time, with different conditions, and then things went wrong.

Imagine its all so pure mad, even Doclan Gonley is on the No side and indeed for many people is the reason to vote yes.

So deliciously ironic.

They're all telling us to vote yes and we're going to. hahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahha

eamo127

Facts are relative to what side you are arguing from. The yes side has their 'facts' as well as the no side. I'm just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. I read your link to the thread. The figures in the first post could be easily rebuffed. For a start, nothing about growth potential and the tax argument is, at best, arbitrary.

Rb

Yikes, you know things are desperate when Richard Boyd Barrett is rolled out.

The_Minister

Why is the Socialist Workers Party getting so much air time?

The_Minister

I don't know who Michael Heaney is, but I bet his face is red.

Scofflaw

OK -thanks for clarifying. Don't you have a problem with that? I mean, why are you happy to hand over sovereignty to Europe? Isn't this going against all historical sanity? I'm still undecided, but here's and example of my problem.

Remember the schools fees fiasco last year - schools were suddenly presented with water bills of up to 10 grand! What did our politicians say - it's our obligation 'under europe', 'not my decision, it was an EU decision'. How can I find anyone accountable for their decisions when they pass the buck like that to a massive bureaucratic block where we represent less than 1% of the population?

Prove to me this is not as bad as it looks.

In fact, there was an exemption available for schools, and our government turned it down - here, for example, is Kathy Sinnot from last year demanding to know why the government didn't avail of the exemption:

MEP for Munster Kathy Sinnott has demanded the Government explain why it is not availing of an exemption from water charges in the Water Framework Directive from the EU, and is instead charging schools, hospitals and farms for water use.

Article 9 (4) of the Water Framework Directive provides for an exemption from the EU requirement to recover the full cost of water treatment. This exemption is attainable at the discretion of the Minister for Environment, John Gormley.

Ms Sinnott says: "There is an easily attainable exemption available to the government on water charges written into the Water Framework Directive.

"Brussels has expressed surprise that Ireland did not take it up. In fact they tell me that it was known as the 'Irish Exemption' within the Commission because of its obvious application for Ireland.

"I call on the Government to explain why they have added yet another stealth tax, and blamed it on the EU?

And that is an example of the problem I have with the EU - not that we're outvoted, because voting is very rare, but that we have insufficient oversight of our government when it's in Europe. Had it not been for Kathy Sinnot MEP, we wouldn't have known that there had been such an exemption. It's a large part of why I'm in favour of Lisbon, because it has a better set of tools for keeping an eye on our own government.

eamo127 wrote: »

Well, I'm 44. Here's my problem. You say we "democratically agreed to these rules at every step over the last 36 years". I don't ever remember these issues being debated then voted on. What treaty did we vote for that gave europe free reign of our fishing grounds?

That was part of the accession treaty, as it is for every EU member - access to each other's waters, management through the disastrous CFP. Given the tiny fishing industry back then, Ireland accepted the restrictions on fishing in exchange for CAP, and a large majority of Ireland voted Yes.

eamo127 wrote: »

What about Nice? If it was democratic, why was NO not accepted back then?

Possibly because a lot of us weren't serious - I voted No at Nice 1, because I felt the government's attitude was appalling. I know a lot of other people who did likewise, and it was accepted by pretty much all of that kind of voter (and many of those who abstained) that the government would ask us again - as they did.

eamo127 wrote: »

Same for now. The question of democracy is that we are free only to vote yes this time else we will have to accept the consequences. That's the clear vibe I'm getting from this election.

I wonder how the folks here who are advocating YES, how do you justify this democratic deficit. I mean, how would YOU feel if your votes were cast aside and preached at to vote differrently next time? There is something eerially orwellian about all this.

No, Orwellian is when you're pretty certain that most people voted No, but the result announced is an overwhelming Yes. You'll find, when you go into the ballot box, that you're free to vote either way, as is everybody else. The mechanism that gives the government - and only the government - the right to call referendums in this way may strike you as unfair, but you're free to vote whichever way you like, and so is everyone else in the country. The result will only be a Yes if the majority of people actually want it to be - and calling that undemocratic is like a teenager claiming he's oppressed because he can't do exactly what he likes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

squod

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the arguments.... around from NO side are identical to what we heard at Nice and Maastrich

?