Tom McGurk broadcaster, poet & journalist tells it like it is re Lisbon

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

he feels it will result in a United States of Lisbon

:eek:

RealityCheck

Rb wrote: »

No sorry, the Yes side here have presented facts as benefits to voting yes, quoting from the text. See Sink's excellent post for a perfect example.

The No posters here have yet to provide anything of the sort.

Yes, the posters by the Yes side aren't the most factual, however they're a damn sight better than the malicious, disgusting lies that are on the posters of the No side.

Don't even try to equate the two campaigns, overall the Yes side has came out of this like shining beacons of Democracy.

I meant in general, not specifically boards.ie. I have not had much time to look around here lately so I cant comment much about the debate here. As you might guess I'm at fairly neutral point of view on the treaty.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

:eek:

Great joke there from the man/woman/eurocrat who set up a boards account to make over 1000 posts on the Lisbon treaty in about a month.

MrMatisse

And they say the yes side is trying to intimidate people:rolleyes:

Poor Reality check.

K-9

RealityCheck wrote: »

I think you will find that Ganley and McGurk are two different people with two different opinions and agendas.

Nah, Ganley had one opinion last year and he changed his agenda since, so actually it is Ganley who has two different opinions and agendas.

RealityCheck

prinz wrote: »

How so? Nothing in that article is based in reality.



Yes they are. But one of them has to be wrong. Ganley wants a United States of Europe and campaigns against Lisbon.... McGurk campaigns against Lisbon because he feels it will result in a United States of Lisbon.... they can't both be right.

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Great joke there from the man/woman/eurocrat who set up a boards account to make over 1000 posts on the Lisbon treaty in about a month.

erm i was just pointing out a clear typo and having a laugh

jebus whats your problem :rolleyes:

g5fd6ow0hseima

RealityCheck wrote: »

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

nice post there, hopefully itll clear up a lot for people

RealityCheck

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, Ganley had one opinion last year and he changed his agenda since, so actually it is Ganley who has two different opinions and agendas.

I think you could be right there. His main aim is stopping the european project by whatever means necessary. His opinions are decided by whatever best serves his agenda.

MrMatisse

I think it makes light of the mans arguments.

prinz

RealityCheck wrote: »

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

Or so he says indeed His big problem is that he knows with Lisbon ratified the EU will be a stable force again, and any such move towards a federal United States of Europe will be off the agenda. He wants Europe in turmoil, so he can peddle his pan-European political system, leading towards his USE. McGurk is just a eurosceptic who has obviously been listening to the UKIP for too long. Neither of them are actually arguing on the Treaty itself.

Scofflaw

moondogspot wrote: »

I bet you if he said that the Lisbon Treaty was brilliant, you would be giving him high praise. Tbh I would much prefer to hear his take on things than from some random posters here who know it all.;)

Yet here you are.

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

RealityCheck wrote: »

Ganleys main problem with Lisbon is democracy and the fact that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland, or so he says.
McGurk is against Lisbon due to the perceived federalism that is creeping into the structures of Europe.
I think they are campaigning on two different arguments altogeher, both are not neccesarily right or wrong.

aint that the whole problem with NO campaign?

it consists of a bunch of far left/right groups with diametrically opposed viewpoints on everything?

but somehow they are campaigning against same centrist Treaty

who would have imagined the day when Sinn Fein would be on the same side as UKIP eurosceptics

and then we have wannabe millionaire with dodgy history trying to buy his way into power and fame

you couldn't make it up

/

prinz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you couldn't make it up

Ian Fleming could

moviesrme

Instinct tells me we are being sold a pup here. And yet if we vote NO we will be punished. It's a pity we didn't see the loss of power coming with Maastrict and Nice. Having said this it's impossible to be sure. Maybe it's not as bad as I fear.
I am a supporter of the Zeitgeist movement. I see farmers losing their livelihoods. I see financial crashes and jobs leaving the country willy nilly. Are the bankers shoring up the wealth of the world?

I really don't know what to think! You see trust is required and it is in short supply and has been for years. If I was taking out a mortgage and I wasn't sure I wouldn't proceed. So it seems no is required. I find it impossible to get sure and that's what I need for a Yes.

Tarobot

moviesrme wrote: »

Instinct tells me we are being sold a pup here. And yet if we vote NO we will be punished. It's a pity we didn't see the loss of power coming with Maastrict and Nice. Having said this it's impossible to be sure. Maybe it's not as bad as I fear.
I am a supporter of the Zeitgeist movement. I see farmers losing their livelihoods. I see financial crashes and jobs leaving the country willy nilly. Are the bankers shoring up the wealth of the world?

I really don't know what to think! You see trust is required and it is in short supply and has been for years. If I was taking out a mortgage and I wasn't sure I wouldn't proceed. So it seems no is required. I find it impossible to get sure and that's what I need for a Yes.

But if you're worried about farmers, are you aware that the IFA and the Food and Drinks Industry is pro-Lisbon and 80% of farmers plan to vote Yes?

You don't need to trust Irish politicians, you can read the Treaty yourself! www.lisbonexposed.org or www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

The Volt

Tarobot wrote: »

But if you're worried about farmers, are you aware that the IFA and the Food and Drinks Industry is pro-Lisbon and 80% of farmers plan to vote Yes?

You don't need to trust Irish politicians, you can read the Treaty yourself! www.lisbonexposed.org or www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

Thanks for that Tarobot. I know this has been said a million times but look not to the politicians, look to the many groups like IFA, ICTU etc

moviesrme

Yes Tarobot I know the IFA supports it and thats good. But I wonder are they right. Farming is going downhill and has been for years. Conversely a no vote certainly wont help farmers.

Reading the treaty is possible but not practical. I don't have the time (3 weeks) or the technical skill to tease it out.

My point is essentially trusting our politicians/ euro politicians etc. is absolutely key to this. And I don't.
My final position is the right thing I think to do is vote no but the prudent thing to do is vote yes so that's what I intend to do. I think the yes side will win this time but not by that much.

wicklowlad

moondogspot wrote: »

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/euro-federalists-bully-us-and-buy-our-vote-44635.html



One of the best articles I've seen written about Lisbon yet and I have to agree with him

wholeheartedly. I posted this because I thought it deserved a discussion of its own. It is very

clear, that we the Irish, are been bullied & bought to pass Lisbon. :mad:

The article is factually wrong on some points and shows bias. I also wonder why people say they are bullied?? Turn of the tv - put down the paper or turn the radio off!!! What does bullied mean?? Are we not getting the same amount of garbage from all sides??? and this what's this about being bought - did Ganley's London connection (won't mention his USA friends) pay for the massive advertising the last time?? Mind you we are still awaiting clarity on Libertas funding - Din S/Fein get their funding in the North??

Tarobot

moviesrme wrote: »

Yes Tarobot I know the IFA supports it and thats good. But I wonder are they right. Farming is going downhill and has been for years. Conversely a no vote certainly wont help farmers.

Why do you think they are wrong?

moviesrme wrote: »

Reading the treaty is possible but not practical. I don't have the time (3 weeks) or the technical skill to tease it out.

www.lisbontreaty2009.ie has a 30 minute guide to Lisbon.

moviesrme wrote: »

My point is essentially trusting our politicians/ euro politicians etc. is absolutely key to this. And I don't.

Why is trusting our politicians key? They will still be in power if we vote No.

moviesrme wrote: »

My final position is the right thing I think to do is vote no but the prudent thing to do is vote yes so that's what I intend to do. I think the yes side will win this time but not by that much.

Well I'm glad to hear you're planning on voting yes but I'd rather you were happy about it! Please continue to reply and we might be able to sort out a few issues.

CiDeRmAn

Hmmm, it's all a bit Team America, isn't it, a celeb coming out and telling us whats best, us relying on their "wisdom" and somehow their fame makes what they say more believable than the politicians we vote in to lead the country, the people who do not form opinions but who are tasked by the citizens of the state to make an analysis of the treaty and to give us the best answer based on the countries now and future requirements for prosperity.

I'm sure Mr. McGurk is a nice guy, and he can certainly get his point across with clarity and prose, but, it's still simply his opinion, he has an obvious anti europe bias going on, seems to sense the damage was started in previous agreements and referenda, so are we to beleive that Tom McGurk is an honest broker here?
Don't think so.

I'll take my own counsel on this one, I have listened to both sides, the facts and the hyperbole, and have come to my own conclusions.

I am just as prone to bias based on the "type" of people trying to influence my descison, not least of those on the "No" side who number Sinn Fein, Socialist Party and Libertas, not to mention Coir.

wicklowlad

Tarobot wrote: »

Why do you think they are wrong?


www.lisbontreaty2009.ie has a 30 minute guide to Lisbon.


Why is trusting our politicians key? They will still be in power if we vote No.


Well I'm glad to hear you're planning on voting yes but I'd rather you were happy about it! Please continue to reply and we might be able to sort out a few issues.

Good on you Tarobot at last some sensible info and let keep local politics out of the vote on the treaty.

rebelmind

K-9 wrote: »

So Multi Nationals will leave Ireland if there is a No?

So there is economic consequences to voting No?

Did they leave after the last NO vote?

Where are your 'sources' in arguing that Intel/Ryanair held board meetings & decided to leave Ireland if there is a second NO vote?

That is the jist of your argument, but the fact remains that as long as Ireland maintains control of Corportate tax multi-nationals will stay!

(Unless, of course, enticed by EU money to relocate to Poland.) !!

Tarobot

rebelmind wrote: »

Did they leave after the last NO vote?

*ahem* DELL... Only joking, I don't think it was because of the NO vote that DELL left.

rebelmind wrote: »

That is the jist of your argument, but the fact remains that as long as Ireland maintains control of Corportate tax multi-nationals will stay!

Please provide evidence to support this "fact".

rebelmind

Tarobot wrote: »

*ahem* DELL... Only joking, I don't think it was because of the NO vote that DELL left.


Please provide evidence to support this "fact".

ROFL !!!
ok, Foreigh Direct Investment is enticed by the IDA et al, to come to Ireland to vote in our referenda & has nothing to do with corporate tax.
Big corporates are just soo passionate about democracy, especially Irelands democracy, that they are simply falling over one another to base themselves here.
Whats more, the Polish equivalent of the IDA, invited DEll to Lodz, 'cos Dell wanna vote on Polish elections.

What kind of mindless drivel are you peddling?

sceptre

rebelmind wrote: »

(Unless, of course, enticed by EU money to relocate to Poland.) !!

Ah now, in fairness, two people posted that in the past two days and they were both wrong as well. 54 million from the Polish government, not a bean from the EU and actually the EU gave us 22 million to help us out with the problem. I listed the exact figures but it'd be a good exercise for you to go and find them yourself. Stop being so lazy with your research. Even a simple google search for Dell poland Eu grant will give you actual facts as opposed to something gleaned from the bottom of a sugar packet. Anyone who can type can use google.

On the other hand you may be taking the piss, in which case I've poked fun at you without cause and offer apologies (if that's the case in my defence I'll offer that it's hard to tell the difference between the foolishness and the irony these days as there's too much of the former). If it's not though... slaps.

tonycascarino

rebelmind wrote: »

Brilliant article Tom, thank you for your clarity & wisdom.
If their is any don't knows around who still have a scrap of self-respect, please read this & Vote NO, if for nothing more that to tell the Emperor he has no clothes!

I agree it's an excellent article. I hope people read it and take it into consideration.

K-9

rebelmind wrote: »

Did they leave after the last NO vote?

Where are your 'sources' in arguing that Intel/Ryanair held board meetings & decided to leave Ireland if there is a second NO vote?

That is the jist of your argument, but the fact remains that as long as Ireland maintains control of Corportate tax multi-nationals will stay!

(Unless, of course, enticed by EU money to relocate to Poland.) !!

Will you please answer a question with a proper response. Please.

Answering a question with another is poor.

Can you answer the question?

rebelmind

K-9 wrote: »

Will you please answer a question with a proper response. Please.

Answering a question with another is poor.

Can you answer the question?

The issue here is FDI & CT.
It is asserted by those who support a ‘Yes’ Vote, that Ireland’s CT Rate will not be impacted. This argument is difficult to sustain. Ireland’s original special 10% CT Rate, endorsed by the EU because of our past developmental status, co-existed with a higher CT Rate for domestic companies. With the termination of the 10% Rate, it was assumed by both the EU and the larger EU Countries less successful at attracting FDI, that Ireland would simply default back to its higher-level CT Rate. In a rare outbreak of forward thinking, and to the chagrin of the dominant countries, Ireland reduced its overall CT Rate to 12.5%.

This still rankles with the larger Euro powers and they have made it quite clear that they intend harmonising tax rates. The energetic rebuttals by Irish politicians provide the clearest guide to the fact that this is a real threat. It would be naive in the extreme to anticipate that the dominant countries, whose high and complex corporate tax rules are resulting in the defection of major multi-national companies (many to Ireland) will not find a way to abolish Ireland’s Corporate Tax rate, one of our very few policy instruments which make us attractive to foreign inward investment. Quite apart from realpolitik, there is respectable and authoritative academic research which demonstrates that one simply cannot take seriously the protestations of Governments where their own self-interests are at stake. The larger countries with a vested interest in eliminating Ireland’s favourable CT rate are staying very quiet on this issue, at least until the Referendum is over. We know from leaked memos that this silence is orchestrated.

Ireland’s CT rate as a core element in our competitiveness is particularly relevant given current and prospective international economic developments, including recession in the US, which is our most important source of inward investment and the UK, which is rapidly heading into stagnant inflation, and is our most important trading partner.

K-9

rebelmind wrote: »

The issue here is FDI & CT.
It is asserted by those who support a ‘Yes’ Vote, that Ireland’s CT Rate will not be impacted. This argument is difficult to sustain. Ireland’s original special 10% CT Rate, endorsed by the EU because of our past developmental status, co-existed with a higher CT Rate for domestic companies. With the termination of the 10% Rate, it was assumed by both the EU and the larger EU Countries less successful at attracting FDI, that Ireland would simply default back to its higher-level CT Rate. In a rare outbreak of forward thinking, and to the chagrin of the dominant countries, Ireland reduced its overall CT Rate to 12.5%.

This still rankles with the larger Euro powers and they have made it quite clear that they intend harmonising tax rates. The energetic rebuttals by Irish politicians provide the clearest guide to the fact that this is a real threat. It would be naive in the extreme to anticipate that the dominant countries, whose high and complex corporate tax rules are resulting in the defection of major multi-national companies (many to Ireland) will not find a way to abolish Ireland’s Corporate Tax rate, one of our very few policy instruments which make us attractive to foreign inward investment. Quite apart from realpolitik, there is respectable and authoritative academic research which demonstrates that one simply cannot take seriously the protestations of Governments where their own self-interests are at stake. The larger countries with a vested interest in eliminating Ireland’s favourable CT rate are staying very quiet on this issue, at least until the Referendum is over. We know from leaked memos that this silence is orchestrated.

Ireland’s CT rate as a core element in our competitiveness is particularly relevant given current and prospective international economic developments, including recession in the US, which is our most important source of inward investment and the UK, which is rapidly heading into stagnant inflation, and is our most important trading partner.

Indeed, I'm with you there.

How is this threatened in Lisbon?