O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

badinfleunce

WaltKowalski wrote: »

I thought Ganley came off best after that debate.
O'Leary obviously had no respect for the event - he should have worn something smarter.
Ganley is quite suave!

Actually Miriam O'Callaghan wasn't very appropriately dressed either.

I thought Miriam looked Gorgeous as always! - What a woman!

WaltKowalski

badinfleunce wrote: »

I thought Miriam looked Gorgeous as always! - What a woman!

She looked fantastic - but the outfit wasn't appropriate for a televised political debate.
You wouldn't see Mark Little in jeans on Prime Time!!

Sorry for lowering the tone of the thread.

Plotician

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

Any idea what they might favour from what the heard today??

Whether you think the 'no' side are lying or not, they all came across as fairly rational human beings. O'Leary lost it a bit on both the radio and TV debate, Martin lost his cool on the radio debate.

If you keep calling what appear to be rational people liars, and those rational appearing people get enough coverage, then you end up undermining yourself.

I'm a no voter (first time and this time) purely on the risk to neutrality aspect. Ireland will sign up to the CDA very quickly and I don't trust the arms industry agenda (and our potential association with it). The neutrality question was back seat for a while so i welcome it back into the debate.

Sully

Neither Ganley or O'Leary were much good but jesus, O'Leary was terribly unprepared. Ganley seemed a bit taken aback by the lack of effort and O'Leary just quoted the referedum commission and insulted Ganley. Terrible debate.

badinfleunce

WaltKowalski wrote: »

She looked fantastic - but the outfit wasn't appropriate for a televised political debate.
You wouldn't see Mark Little in jeans on Prime Time!!

Sorry for lowering the tone of the thread.

Maybe it was a themed night.

O leary seemed to be sporting a pair of dark blue Dunnes stores specials and a Guineys shirt and jacket keeping inline with his own brand - Cheap, Low Cost - No Brainer! LOL

Mary Lou looked liked shed just come from line dancin in her flowy Guna and box jacket.

Pete M.

Someone earlier refuted the 'orwellianness' of this whole sorry affair, but with the way in which the military-industrial complex reality which we live in is being underpinned, secured and promoted, hmm, I'm suspicious and thats enough for me.
Twas good TV though, the auld heads in RTE can still see through the old politics to the real entertainment underneath.
And I do agree, MOl wasn't very appropriately dressed, while Doclan cut quite a figure. Betcha he's got a tailor in Brussels...
Orwellian with a hint of Oscar Wilde perhaps is the way we're headed....

meglome

Well aren't all the new sign-ups in tonight. Must be a coincidence of some kind.

puffdragon

This goes down as a BAD DAY FOR THE YES SIDE , with the Taioseach nearly falling into that tractor (only the observant will see)and O'Leary getting himself into a debate he clearly was uncomfortable with then I call today for the No side (not to mention Mary Coughlan) my god what is she at!!
I replied to a thread some time ago along the lines;"this governament are desperate" I must buy a crystal ball !

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

If you keep calling what appear to be rational people liars, and those rational appearing people get enough coverage, then you end up undermining yourself.

This is a major problem faced by the yes side. It takes only a few seconds to tell a lie but it could take half an hour to properly refute it and if you do anything less you get dismissed as arrogant or irrational and undermine yourself

Plotician wrote: »

I'm a no voter (first time and this time) purely on the risk to neutrality aspect. Ireland will sign up to the CDA very quickly and I don't trust the arms industry agenda (and our potential association with it). The neutrality question was back seat for a while so i welcome it back into the debate.

Does a legally binding guarantee on our neutrality not do anything for you? Or how about that the same claims were made about the Maastricht treaty?

Btw, if in your reply you even hint at a possibility of the guarantees not being binding I may just shoot myself with the gun I got when I was conscripted into the EU superstate's army

You say that Ireland will sign up to the CDA but if we choose to give up our neutrality how is that the EU's fault? Also aren't we already associated with it for peace keeping missions?

Pete M.

We're not all on the Libertas books you know.

And you may be familiar with the old cliche - long time listener etc.- but it's only when I think I should think about it that I bother.

You know it's bad when the people with the high ground start getting suspicious and start talking conspiracies.

Thought that was the realm of the left wing pinko type...

I'm real suspicious

bug

meglome wrote: »

Well aren't all the new sign-ups in tonight. Must be a coincidence of some kind.

Did something similar myself.
Or.. shocker.. it just because of the high level of interest in the televised debates.:eek:

Captain Furball

puffdragon wrote: »

This goes down as a BAD DAY FOR THE YES SIDE , with the Taioseach nearly falling into that tractor (only the observant will see)and O'Leary getting himself into a debate he clearly was uncomfortable with then I call today for the No side (not to mention Mary Coughlan) my god what is she at!!
I replied to a thread some time ago along the lines;"this governament are desperate" I must buy a crystal ball !

Lol

badinfleunce

One has to question why O Leary tried to tackle this monster Ganly on Lisbon.

Was it just for Ryanair publicity again. Another PR stunt!?

What was he attempting to gain from this?

Who is he puppeting for and who has a hand up his ass?

Whats in it for him?

Why was he so ill prepared for such a public debate?

Is he losing the plot and has all the Ryanair rip offs made him think hes untouchable?

I once thought if O leary had a chance at running this country and applied his business acumen to the economy we could possibly have a great leader. - Tonight I doubt that and in fact O Leary in my estimations has lost all credibility as a commentator.

K-9

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Ganley knows the Lisbon Treaty inside out, he would hammer Gowen and any of his fellow polititions if he was let loose in the Oireachtas in the morning.

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Yeah and RTDH Knows when somebody is quoting the Treaty.

Cox hammered MLM. When she mentioned the EU fighting terrorists, subliminally she lost it there and then.

Cox reinforced it with the GFA.

moondogspot

puffdragon wrote: »

This goes down as a BAD DAY FOR THE YES SIDE , with the Taioseach nearly falling into that tractor (only the observant will see)and O'Leary getting himself into a debate he clearly was uncomfortable with then I call today for the No side (not to mention Mary Coughlan) my god what is she at!!
I replied to a thread some time ago along the lines;"this governament are desperate" I must buy a crystal ball !

Very much agreed. An absolutely terrible day all round for them.

bernardo mac

Very poor debate and poorer times ahead for a leaderless country sinking deeper into the slough of despond and insolvency.It was depressing to view MOL and DC,self important,self serving sh***s[made men ]telling us yokels what to think and do.Yeah,maybe we are just helpless proles and we deserve our lot for voting or not voting and creating the self serving "elite" that run and ruin this pathetic state

Rb

meglome wrote: »

Well aren't all the new sign-ups in tonight. Must be a coincidence of some kind.

Indeed, and yet more old accounts with sfa posts coming out against the treaty and all with the same common traits ; bad spelling, grammar and apparently no ability to have a rational, logical debate without filling it with lies and bs slogans.

The noise to signal ratio took a bit of a jump tonight but sure we're almost there now and hopefully those who shall not be named will once again disappear.

K-9

moondogspot wrote: »

Very much agreed. An absolutely terrible day all round for them.

Look it is Ganley and MOL.

Will this sway undecideds?

Unlikely.

MOL scored on the Ganley undemocratic point, 500,000 unemployed etc. etc. Ganley won the debate.

What it means is Ganley will not get all the media attention.

Interesting to see how the media play it tomorrow.

Daftendirekt

Well, that was a fiasco.


Enjoyed the Higgins v Martin debate. Martin could've done better, but it was ok. He should've emphasised that the EU poses less of a threat to workers' rights than our own government, and he was sloppy in explaining the Laval judgement. Higgins didn't present much of an argument, just some Eurosceptic, socialist rhetoric. I'd give this one to Martin, by a slight margin. To his credit, there was less of the 'Europe's so great' waffle than I expected

MLM v Pat Cox was alright too. Mary Lou was basically playing the militarisation of the EU card and Cox did a pretty good job of refuting her, although he didn't do himself any favours with the terrorism references. I think MLM lost this one when she started questioning the status of the guarantees.

Ganley v O' Leary was where it went to hell. This one definitely goes to to Ganley, not because he made any good points, but because O' Leary made such a twat of himself.

To anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the Treaty, both participants walked away looking terrible. To the 'don't knows' however, Ganley would've come across as looking far more knowledgeable and informed, whereas O'Leary just looked like a tool. Ganley, at least, made reference to the Treaty on one occasion - even if it was just to misprepresent the article in question so as to make it look like Lisbon gave the EU the power to force new taxes on member states.


I actually felt like yelling at O' Leary at some points. His answer to everything, was 'Yeah, well, I'm an employer and you're a failed politician, and we'll keep our commissioner, and we have a guarantee on taxation.' I'm not exaggerating here, if you missed it, watch it on the RTE site and you'll see what I mean. Interestingly (but not surprisingly), Ganley seems to disregard the guarantees as well. That, or he doesn't know the difference between direct and indirect tax.


Overall though, most of the important points were covered in the earlier debates. Hopefully that'll be enough to keep O' Leary's miserably uninformed rant from swaying the don't knows to Ganley's side.

moondogspot

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Overall though, most of the important points were covered in the earlier debates. Hopefully that'll be enough to keep O' Leary's miserably uninformed rant from swaying the don't knows to Ganley's side.

I don't think the Yes side offered anything worthwhile to convince anyone to vote Yes. Remember the onus is on the Yes side to convert the no side (since No won Lisbon I) and I don't think that was done at all. Michael O'Leary was so poor that he will be remembered. Ganley ate him alive.

Enigma'

Bad move Mick, bad move. He did nothing but hurl insults at Ganley for the entire 15mins and failed to give even one convincing reason why we should vote YES.

WINNER: GANLEY
LOSER : O'LEARY

badinfleunce

Rb wrote: »

Indeed, and yet more old accounts with sfa posts coming out against the treaty and all with the same common traits ; bad spelling, grammar and apparently no ability to have a rational, logical debate without filling it with lies and bs slogans.

The noise to signal ratio took a bit of a jump tonight but sure we're almost there now and hopefully those who shall not be named will once again disappear.

I disagree with your comments. You are obviously pro Lisbon who is dismayed with the representation for the Yes vote on Primetime tonight.

The electorate have the right to comment. Old accounts that have remained silent over the years are now coming to the forefront to vent their anger at what they are hearing and seeing on Primetime tv as our country freefalls into the abyss.

This is a very worrying situation we are in. Democracy is being tested. Our leader is nowhere to be seen tonight on this debate and we the people of the Ireland are sick of this situation. Thats why were making noise! And dont try to stop us. Your contribution to this thread is typical FF type tactics with nothing positive to say on the treaty itself!

K-9

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Well, that was a fiasco.


Enjoyed the Higgins v Martin debate. Martin could've done better, but it was ok. He should've emphasised that the EU poses less of a threat to workers' rights than our own government, and he was sloppy in explaining the Laval judgement. Higgins didn't present much of an argument, just some Eurosceptic, socialist rhetoric. I'd give this one to Martin, by a slight margin. To his credit, there was less of the 'Europe's so great' waffle than I expected

MLM v Pat Cox was alright too. Mary Lou was basically playing the militarisation of the EU card and Cox did a pretty good job of refuting her, although he didn't do himself any favours with the terrorism references. I think MLM lost this one when she started questioning the status of the guarantees.

Ganley v O' Leary was where it went to hell. This one definitely goes to to Ganley, not because he made any good points, but because O' Leary made such a twat of himself.

To anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the Treaty, both participants walked away looking terrible. To the 'don't knows' however, Ganley would've come across as looking far more knowledgeable and informed, whereas O'Leary just looked like a tool. Ganley, at least, made reference to the Treaty on one occasion - even if it was just to misprepresent the article in question so as to make it look like Lisbon gave the EU the power to force new taxes on member states.


I actually felt like yelling at O' Leary at some points. His answer to everything, was 'Yeah, well, I'm an employer and you're a failed politician, and we'll keep our commissioner, and we have a guarantee on taxation.' I'm not exaggerating here, if you missed it, watch it on the RTE site and you'll see what I mean. Interestingly (but not surprisingly), Ganley seems to disregard the guarantees as well. That, or he doesn't know the difference between direct and indirect tax.


Overall though, most of the important points were covered in the earlier debates. Hopefully that'll be enough to keep O' Leary's miserably uninformed rant from swaying the don't knows to Ganley's side.

Ganley won, but Cox was impressive too.

Ganley may not swing too many undecideds.

People underestimate the Neutrality concerns, especially among Mothers. Cox won that hands down, a pleasent reminder of who to trust on this issue.

moondogspot

K-9 wrote: »

People underestimate the Neutrality concerns, especially among women. Cox won that hands down.

Cox wouldn't sway too many. He just came across as been smug & arrogant and even managed to lose his cool towards the end.

K-9

moondogspot wrote: »

Cox wouldn't sway too many. He just came across as been smug & arrogant and even managed to lose his cool towards the end.

Well, you would say that.

If the GFA is good enough for SF, these guarantees are good enough for SF.

Daftendirekt

moondogspot wrote: »

Cox wouldn't sway too many. He just came across as been smug & arrogant and even managed to lose his cool towards the end.

I dunno, Mary Lou was trying to claim the guarantees were worthless. Cox stamped out that particular lie pretty sharpish.


And I'd agree with K-9 that the neutrality guarantee is an important factor this time round.

badinfleunce

The “assurances” or guarantees include an explicit statement that “these concerns (are) in conformity with that treaty”. This is the core sentence in the Summit document. In the so-called “Irish assurances” not one single comma in the Lisbon Treaty will be changed. Neither is this “decision” of the EU summit signed by the heads of state and government. In legal form it is simply an Annex to a Summit Declaration which, in contrast to a Treaty Protocol, is not binding in EU law. The “decision” is followed by a common “solemn declaration” which may express the intentions of the politicians taking part. It does not however prevent politicians at future summits changing these “assurances”.

Finally, the government has its own Irish Declaration. A unilateral Declaration of this kind has to be interpreted as a statement of position by one state which the others do not necessarily agree with. If they did agree to it, it would have been part of the joint declaration or the earlier “decision”, in the name of all 27 Member States.

In summary then, there has been no change to the Lisbon Treaty. If there had been, it would have to be re-ratified in the Member States that have already ratified it and we see no sign of that being proposed.

K-9

badinfleunce wrote: »

The “assurances” or guarantees include an explicit statement that “these concerns (are) in conformity with that treaty”. This is the core sentence in the Summit document. In the so-called “Irish assurances” not one single comma in the Lisbon Treaty will be changed. Neither is this “decision” of the EU summit signed by the heads of state and government. In legal form it is simply an Annex to a Summit Declaration which, in contrast to a Treaty Protocol, is not binding in EU law. The “decision” is followed by a common “solemn declaration” which may express the intentions of the politicians taking part. It does not however prevent politicians at future summits changing these “assurances”.

Finally, the government has its own Irish Declaration. A unilateral Declaration of this kind has to be interpreted as a statement of position by one state which the others do not necessarily agree with. If they did agree to it, it would have been part of the joint declaration or the earlier “decision”, in the name of all 27 Member States.

In summary then, there has been no change to the Lisbon Treaty. If there had been, it would have to be re-ratified in the Member States that have already ratified it and we see no sign of that being proposed.

Do you not think this may have been considered by our advisers before.

Not just FF, but our our advisers in Brussels?

Do you think you or SF are the first to think of this?

badinfleunce

K-9 wrote: »

Do you not think this may have been considered by our advisers before.

Not just FF, but our our advisers in Brussels?

Do you think you or SF are the first to think of this?

It is a creative way of giving people a feeling of legal certainty which does not and cannot exist since only properly ratified EU treaties by all member states, with their protocols, can offer binding legal guarantees in EU law

Daftendirekt

badinfleunce wrote: »

It is a creative way of giving people a feeling of legal certainty which does not and cannot exist since only properly ratified EU treaties by all member states, with their protocols, can offer binding legal guarantees in EU law

It's already been established that


A) In the event of a conflict between the Treaty and the assurances, the Treaty would take precedence

The Treaty doesn't conflict with the assurances and

C) The assurances will be made into protocols at the next accession treaty.