O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

123john123

badinfleunce wrote: »

The FFs are using the recession and the effect that Lisbon will have if we vote No. Boll*x!

I think we should Vote No on the basis that all these hypothetical facts that we will no longer be part of Europe, that we will be side lined etc. etc. are really trying to scare monger the electorate because the supporting parties have nothing else thats of worth to the people to fight this campaign on.

Why are they not fighting the campaign on actual fact that is stated in the treaty and selling the benefits of this.????

Im sick of this current government - Im sick of Europe and the fact that we already voted No and now they want us to Vote again on a Treaty that in body has not changed one word. We already Voted No and I for one will Vote No again to defend democracy and to stop Europe advancing its military might. No to Lisbon - No to conscription. - Don't sign a treaty that may end up sending you son or grandson to War!

Badinfluence, you are the ipetimy of a hypocritical idiot who is going to vote no. Example, you say the yes campaigners are "scare mongering" however you ended your rant by saying if we vote yes our grandsons are going to be conscripted to war. Pathetic

If you listened to the debate last night, you may have noticed Mr Cox destroy MLM over the war issue because he knows the facts.

What is it with Irish people and their intelligence, really annoys me. Everyone moans about FF but "we" voted them in! "We" voted in bertie when he was in the middle of a tribunal for pocketing cash. It seems as from the last vote on Lisbon, only sensible areas vote yes, this should never have gone to referendum.

123john123

Look whos backing the YES Campaign, good politicians, the government, the Catholic Church, Small businnese, SIPTU etc

And for the NO side, Libertas (who got destroyed across Europe), Coir and Sinn Fein.

Is that not reason enough to vote Yes?

stevedublin

123john123 wrote: »

Look whos backing the YES Campaign, good politicians, the government, the Catholic Church, Small businnese, SIPTU etc

And for the NO side, Libertas (who got destroyed across Europe), Coir and Sinn Fein.

Is that not reason enough to vote Yes?

No, you should vote on the content of the Treaty, not who is backing it for their own agenda.

123john123

stevedublin wrote: »

No, you should vote on the content of the Treaty, not who is backing it for their own agenda.

Maybe but i see no problem with the content. At the end of the day, the list i mentioned above are more learned over the Treaty and the same argument could be put towards why to vote yes.

Dirk Gently

I haven't read through the thread since the radio debate yesterday so apologies if I'm repeating what some one else has said in the mean time.

There was a lot of people wetting themselves in anticipation of their hero Mick O L entering the debate. I equate the MoL fan boys to lefty students wearing che guevara t-shirts because it's cool and rebellious, except from the economic right too cool for school brigade. I listened to the radio debate and watched the tv debate. It was painfully obvious that MoL is not a straight talker but simply a shock jock sticking rigorously to this PR mans script. Same boring retorts throughout the radio and tv debate. Himself and Ganley should have just brought cardboard placards with quotes on them and held them up to the camera. Is Dana releasing a new album? That’s all either of them talked about. Their respective spin doctors playing with the Dana puns and both only too eager to get the cheap one liners into the debate. Thankfully Miriam stepped in and cut them off before they start quoting song titles again. I'm sure the fan boys loved MoL’s slogans and cheap put downs abusing his lefty opposition but that’s all he brought to it, put downs and abuse. He got in a few cheap shots on euro wages and salaries against Higgins and Mc kenna, both of which were Coir like mis resepentations of the facts. One thing you can’t accuse Higgins of is milking the system for personal gain. Neither Ganley nor MoL should have got anywhere near a primetime debate, it was more like entertainment than political debate. More WWE than an honest fight.

I thought the best performer by a country mile in the radio broadcast was Marian Harkin. Pity she had to spend most of her time correcting the other sides previous points though. I would have much preferred watching Martin and Higgins for the whole primetime debate than share time with the likes of Mary Lou, Ganley and MoL none of whom have anything to offer which hasn’t been drilled into them before hand by their respective PR people and learned off by heart. When he says x you say y ect.

I think SF need to stop wheeling out Mary Lou for these debates. Sure it’s nice not to have someone with their finger prints all over some decaying guns buried in a field somewhere but they need a stronger performer if they want to build their profile in the republic. The Mary Lou strategy isn’t working and I doubt she’s pulling in middle class voters which is her prime function. Whatever voters she has pulled in I’m sure they’ve lost more from their traditional base as a result of her taking the lead. Martin is a good debater, speaks well and backs himself up and I like when he’s on despite his party and his politics. He reminds me of a Cowan before he lost his bottle but without the air of arrogance. Higgins will always give a decent account of himself.

I hope this failed performance will signal the end of MoL sticking his nose into this sort of thing. It’s bad when Declan Ganley can show you up. He got to plug Ryan air, he got to lobby a few important EU heads and he got his publicity. I'm sure he'll get a good hearing when he lobbys on behalf of ryan air in future so job done, now bugger off. It annoys me no end to see the likes of himself and Ganley project themselves as leading yes / no campaigners and headline a debate on a show like primetime. Their own self interest is always the priority and yet they insist on waffling on about what’s in the interest of the Irish people. Most cringe worthy moment has to go to Ganley though with his “don’t you dare question my patriotism” retort. Someone has obviously had a word with MoL since his antics for the no side last time and told him a yes vote is good for Ryan Air and Ganley clearly knows that a No vote is in his business interests. RTE were clearly going for entertainment ratings having them on but personally I’d rather watch man get hit with football in the groin for cheap laughs.

The reckoning? Lets get ready to rumble? What an anti climax imo. Like I said give me an hour of Higgins v Martin than give these cheap show men air time to pedal their own self interest in a dick swinging contest funded by the taxpayer.

FunnyStuff

123john123 wrote: »

this should never have gone to referendum.

Its comments like that one that bring across the true arrogance of the yes side. Your idea of what is sensible and what is not, may not be in line with everyone else. I did not vote for toerag Bertie, i dont know anyone that did, so where are these "sensible areas" that you allude to. Perhaps people in the rest of the country should move to one of these "sensible areas" so we can all avail of whatever it is that is making people like you so special.

123john123

Sensible areas are referring to educated areas. I feel that people are fairly uneducated and easily manipulated to swing towards the no side. For instance last time the farmers association backed the lisbon treaty albeit a bit late but i still know some farmers who voted no. Voting No will get Ireland "no"where and its not as if we're in good days. We need europe so whats the issue.

I still havent heard one good reason to vote no.

The treaty is very complex and we shouldnt rely on the usual joe soap to have the time and effort to understand it. Decisions like this should be left to the government and not the people as was the case in the majority of europe.

rasper

I voted No the last time,partly because of who and how they were telling me to vote yes, this included FF,FG & Lab. What sickened me was our own twats in the cabinet not even bother to read the treaty and expecting the mindless voters to do as they bid.
This time I will (I think) vote yes but hate all on both sides and am only going to vote a very reluctant yes, coz Ireland is f**ked if we reject the European plans for the SuperState, regarding PT the No side won the arguement hands down in the three bouts IMO

ei.sdraob

rasper wrote: »

coz Ireland is f**ked if we reject the European plans for the SuperState

I hope then you dont read this by Declan Ganley of the NO fame

who wants a United States of Europe

rasper wrote: »

I voted No the last time,partly because of who and how they were telling me to vote yes, this included FF,FG & Lab

as compared to whom?

Sinn Fein
Coir
UKIP
Libertas

poochiem

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?

ei.sdraob

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?

all your points have been addressed and shown to be nothing more than lies

please do read past threads on this forum

poochiem

ei.sdraob wrote: »

all your points have been addressed and shown to be nothing more than lies

please do read past threads on this forum

you see what I mean? You can't wonder why people are reluctant to contribute.

FunnyStuff

ei.sdraob wrote: »

all your points have been addressed and shown to be nothing more than lies

please do read past threads on this forum

Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it. Part of the problem here is trust, people no longer trust politicians, we've all heard the assurances and promises before, and frankly i think people are sick of it. When politicians show themselves to be trustworthy again, then maybe they wont find it so hard to win over the people.

rasper

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I hope then you dont read this by Declan Ganley of the NO fame

who wants a United States of Europe





as compared to whom?

Sinn Fein
Coir
UKIP
Libertas

It certainly wasn't any of those Horsemen of the Apocalypse that influenced my thinking at all , in fact they scored points in my mind for the Yes side, and in fact this time they are definitely reasons to vote for the treaty even if it does mean voting with Cowen and his crooks

ei.sdraob

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it. Part of the problem here is trust, people no longer trust politicians, we've all heard the assurances and promises before, and frankly i think people are sick of it. When politicians show themselves to be trustworthy again, then maybe they wont find it so hard to win over the people.

opinion?

thats the truth

and its been covered and explained on this forum over and over

and backed by facts


now can you backup your opinion posted few posts up by references?

Hydrosylator

Rb wrote: »

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

Yeah man, that's so true, deadly.
Unless you take into account the small matter of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland.

Like them or not, there's a lot of people in the 6 counties who regard Sinn Féin as the only party to have ever represented their interests.

Sam Vimes

poochiem wrote: »

you see what I mean? You can't wonder why people are reluctant to contribute.

In fairness those issues have been addressed a thousand times. The short version:

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

No it hasn't. The people voted no, told 3 polling companies why, those issues were addressed and we're now being asked if we've changed our minds in light of that

and it's denied a vote to all other europeans.

The EU has no control over referendums. It was a decision of the governments of those countries and we have no right to tell them they're doing democracy wrong.

It will halve Ireland's strength in europe,

No it won't. It's a system of double majority voting the other requirement of which gives us the same voting weight as Germany. They leave that part out because it doesn't fit their agenda. The full rule is that to make a change 55% of countries must vote for it and they must represent 65% of the EU population. The first requirement is by far the most important and they leave it out.

it does seem to open the door to centralised taxation,

No it doesn't and we have a legally binding guarantee saying it doesn't. The idea that it's not legally binding is another lie

a joint militarisation initiative,

Again, guaranteed lie

it does seem that the import of foreign workers at lower wages cannot be stopped by the treaty as in the Lavalle case.

Lie. The Lavelle case could only happen in Sweden because they have no legal minimum wage. The same ruling could not possibly be made here and they know that. They are lying

turgon

clown bag wrote: »

I equate the MoL fan boys to lefty students wearing che guevara t-shirts because it's cool and rebellious.

I dont see how agreeing with MoL is seen as "cool" when half the people you mention such agreement to are liable to verbally abuse you. Did it occur to you that the attraction lies in the fact he has beliefs that he is absolutely unashamed of standing up for, and that people who rarely see these beliefs voiced in the open are attracted to that? No? Easier to lump them in with the "too cool for school" gang rather than contemplate whats really going on?

Biro

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

I agree with your other two sum-ups, but I can't for the life of me see how you can give this one to Martin! Asked how to sum up why we should vote yes he basically answered because we'd look like fools if we didn't. What a clown! There are 100 posters on here on the Yes side who'd come up with a decent sum up, yet this pleb in my books gets an epic fail.

FunnyStuff

ei.sdraob wrote: »

now can you backup your opinion posted few posts up by references?

Like which?

poochiem

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness those issues have been addressed a thousand times. The short version:



No it hasn't. The people voted no, told 3 polling companies why, those issues were addressed and we're now being asked if we've changed our minds in light of that


The EU has no control over referendums. It was a decision of the governments of those countries and we have no right to tell them they're doing democracy wrong.

No it won't. It's a system of double majority voting the other requirement of which gives us the same voting weight as Germany. They leave that part out because it doesn't fit their agenda. The full rule is that to make a change 55% of countries must vote for it and they must represent 65% of the EU population. The first requirement is by far the most important and they leave it out.

No it doesn't and we have a legally binding guarantee saying it doesn't. The idea that it's not legally binding is another lie

Again, guaranteed lie


Lie. The Lavelle case could only happen in Sweden because they have no legal minimum wage. The same ruling could not possibly be made here and they know that. They are lying

well that's a better argument. at least that's the first time i've heard that the lavelle case couldn't apply elsewhere and explained why. thanks. I think the 'we can't tell them they're doing democracy wrong" argument is 'correct' but a bit tenuous - i mean how many foreigners have you met here that wish they were allowed to vote at home. i know loads of french and italians that are pissed about it. and everyone knows the brits are going to vote no if given a vote. i know what you're saying but if you step back you're actually saying that it's democratic not to give people a vote.

no one from a polling company contacted me or anyone I work with or any of my friends. where did that happen?

about the double majority voting, thanks again, I didn't understand that. the yes side don't explain this they just say it puts us at the heart of Europe. The fact that our percentage represetation is halved was denied and its there in black and white so that's what made me believe it.

Owen101

Great debate, thread and entertainment. Ganley v MOL was almost a side issue and nice to see the bully O'Leary getting shot to bits by Ganley's calm and efficient approach. Very impressive. The ol "fail to prepare" line seemed appropriate there.

Cox was seriously intimidating, polished and a real heavyweight. Seemed to be drawing from an almost bottomless well of 'Euro' & Lisbon knowledge at times. Fair f*cks though to Mary Lou she wasnt fazed and the game was up once Cox resorted to cheap SF jibes. Much kudos to her.

Sorry Joe, have to agree with MOL, your a bore and sound like 'Dev'. Im a no voter but you aint convincing anyone.

K-9

poochiem wrote: »

about the double majority voting, thanks again, I didn't understand that. the yes side don't explain this they just say it puts us at the heart of Europe. The fact that our percentage represetation is halved was denied and its there in black and white so that's what made me believe it.

So, how reliable are the No campaigners who told you this?

Plotician

Irish 'no' voters up for a fight?... http://europeanlifenetwork.org//index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=8

Ganley hasn't disappeared (much to the chagrin of some)...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0924/1224255125058.html

Sam Vimes

poochiem wrote: »

well that's a better argument. at least that's the first time i've heard that the lavelle case couldn't apply elsewhere and explained why. thanks. I think the 'we can't tell them they're doing democracy wrong" argument is 'correct' but a bit tenuous - i mean how many foreigners have you met here that wish they were allowed to vote at home. i know loads of french and italians that are pissed about it. and everyone knows the brits are going to vote no if given a vote. i know what you're saying but if you step back you're actually saying that it's democratic not to give people a vote.

Well then those people need to lobby to make it a legal requirement that EU treaties to go referendum, as Crotty did here in the 80's. It's none of our business. We're being asked on our opinion of the treaty, not on how other countries ratify treaties.

poochiem wrote: »

no one from a polling company contacted me or anyone I work with or any of my friends. where did that happen?

Millward Brown did one of them. They polled 1600 people I think which gives an accuracy of 2-3%. There were two more done, one by a college I think and another by an EU organisation. The results were similar for all of them.

poochiem wrote: »

about the double majority voting, thanks again, I didn't understand that. the yes side don't explain this they just say it puts us at the heart of Europe. The fact that our percentage represetation is halved was denied and its there in black and white so that's what made me believe it.

Our representation isn't halved though, that's only half the story. One of the no side's main tactics is selectively quoting the treaty and deliberately leaving out the part that proves they're lying, such as Joe Higgins who says that a particular clause will privatise health and education even though the next paragraph explicitly excludes them. But you're right, the yes campaign has been generally brutal

PopeBuckfastXVI

Plotician wrote: »

Irish 'no' voters up for a fight?... http://europeanlifenetwork.org//index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=8

You might find more of a fight here -> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

Plotician wrote: »

Ganley hasn't disappeared (much to the chagrin of some)...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0924/1224255125058.html

Typical 'No' side bias from the Irish Times...

:pac:

poochiem

K-9 wrote: »

So, how reliable are the No campaigners who told you this?

I don't think it was any no campaigners as such. Is our voting strength under Nice not 2.0% and under Lisbon it changes to 0.8%? Again I've read that everywhere so don't think it's just a no campaign figure.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Joe Higgins who says that a particular clause will privatise health and education even though the next paragraph explicitly excludes them. But you're right, the yes campaign has been generally brutal

Sam have you got the article number on that one?

PopeBuckfastXVI

poochiem wrote: »

I don't think it was any no campaigners as such. Is our voting strength under Nice not 2.0% and under Lisbon it changes to 0.8%? Again I've read that everywhere so don't think it's just a no campaign figure.

Nope,

Have a look here:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109

And check it out, our chance of 'winning' any particular vote only decreases by
0.86% in the worst case scenario...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206935&postcount=4

Plotician

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Typical 'No' side bias from the Irish Times...

:pac:

well that blew your credibility! The Irish Times fully support a 'yes' vote, but are allowing some space for debate.