O'Leary admits on TV3 that Ryanairs Yes campaign is all about getting Aer Lingus

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 8:08pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

If some country wants to change something in the Lisbon treaty (using article 48), will we get to vote whether or not we want that change, or will our government decide for us?

It depends on the issue. Just like the government make legislation every day without a referendum they can make some changes under article 48 without referendum. Any changes to our constitution will still require a referendum

Do you want to have a referendum on every change in legislation?

AARRRGH · 28-09-2009 8:08pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We will get to vote on anything that increases the competence of the European Union, be that amendment or treaty.

So you're saying if at any stage in the future the EU decided to change our tax rate, we would definitely get to vote on it? There is no chance it could be implemented without us voting on it?

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 8:10pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We will get to vote on anything that increases the competence of the European Union, be that amendment or treaty.

I don't think the simplified procedure can be used for that, referendum or not

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-09-2009 8:10pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

So you're saying if at any stage in the future the EU decided to change our tax rate, we would definitely get to vote on it? There is no chance it could be implemented without us voting on it?

Absolutely no chance, it's cast iron by our constitution and the crotty judgement.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-09-2009 8:11pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think the simplified procedure can be used for that, referendum or not

Read the post again, I'm talking in general terms, using any method, now or which may be invented in the future.

AARRRGH · 28-09-2009 8:12pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Absolutely no chance, it's cast iron by our constitution and the crotty judgement.

OK, I'll take your word for it.

But if you turn out to be wrong... I'll batter ya!

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-09-2009 8:15pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

OK, I'll take your word for it.

But if you turn out to be wrong... I'll batter ya!

I'll pay your tax for you if I'm wrong...

Johnboy1951 · 28-09-2009 8:24pm

MOL: No, Look my campaign for a Yes vote...aah..one of the reasons that I am campaigning for a Yes vote is that our government is incompetent and yet I need to persude them to sell me Aer Lingus. The nonsense that I need European approval is just that, rubbish. Look, I'm campaigning for a yes vote because I think it's in the best interest of the Irish economy and the nearly 500,000 people who will be unemployed at the end of the year.

So the reasons he is promoting a yes vote are

1. To help persuade our government to sell him Aer Lingus
2.a Best interests of Irish Economy
2.b and the 500,000 who WILL be unemployed by years end.

It is quite clear to me that his wish to purchase Aer Lingus is central to his reasons for promoting a Yes vote.
Having watched his performance on TV and noted his history of dealing with his workers (and their rights) I would be inclined to believe that the Aer Lingus deal is the major reason for his involvement, the others being thrown in to try to legitimise his stance.

O'Leary admits on TV3 that Ryanairs Yes campaign is all about getting Aer Lingus

So the only part of the 'thread heading' I could have a problem with, is the inclusion of the word "all". With that omitted it is accurate, IMO. It may even be accurate with it included .....

.

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 8:40pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So the reasons he is promoting a yes vote are

1. To help persuade our government to sell him Aer Lingus

You can think that if you want but that's not what he said.

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 8:42pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Read the post again, I'm talking in general terms, using any method, now or which may be invented in the future.

I see

Johnboy1951 · 28-09-2009 9:09pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can think that if you want but that's not what he said.

I find it difficult to read this any other way. Do you have a different interpretation?

one of the reasons that I am campaigning for a Yes vote is that our government is incompetent and yet I need to persuade them to sell me Aer Lingus.

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 11:21pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I find it difficult to read this any other way. Do you have a different interpretation?

Yes if you take that part of the quote in isolation it does appear to be saying that but if you take the entire sentence you'll realise he was saying the exact opposite. The meaning of the sentence is to say that one of his reasons for his campaign is that the government is incompetent and he therefore doesn't trust them to win it. He then mentioned as a problem caused by their incompetence that he needs them to sell him Aer Lingus and they won't sell it to him

It's quite obvious if you watch the whole interview in context which is why the context wasn't given

ghost_ie · 29-09-2009 1:59am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

except no one elected him

and he cant take NO for an answer and lingers around like a bad smell

This Government also can't take NO for an answer - if they did, we wouldn't be voting on this Treaty again.

ei.sdraob · 29-09-2009 2:02am

ghost_ie wrote: »

This Government also can't take NO for an answer - if they did, we wouldn't be voting on this Treaty again.

except Ganley made alot of noise about how he can take No for an answer

and would "retire"

oh and our current government were elected by the people (who regret that now)

DUBLINHITMAN · 29-09-2009 2:04am

one thing i want to know will the aerlingus shares go up or down if O'leary buys it

Johnboy1951 · 29-09-2009 2:05am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes if you take that part of the quote in isolation it does appear to be saying that but if you take the entire sentence you'll realise he was saying the exact opposite. The meaning of the sentence is to say that one of his reasons for his campaign is that the government is incompetent and he therefore doesn't trust them to win it. He then mentioned as a problem caused by their incompetence that he needs them to sell him Aer Lingus and they won't sell it to him

It's quite obvious if you watch the whole interview in context which is why the context wasn't given

Strange that, as I quoted what you posted as the context.

meglome · 29-09-2009 2:10am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Strange that, as I quoted what you posted as the context.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What was said:

Yates: Do you think that your campaign for a yes vote will ensure commission approval?

MOL: No, Look my campaign for a Yes vote...aah..one of the reasons that I am campaigning for a Yes vote is that our government is incompetent and yet I need to persuade them to sell me Aer Lingus. The nonsense that I need European approval is just that, rubbish. Look, I'm campaigning for a yes vote because I think it's in the best interest of the Irish economy and the nearly 500,000 people who will be unemployed at the end of the year.

You have taken the exact opposite meaning from the intended one. Well done

This help?

K-9 · 29-09-2009 2:19am

DUBLINHITMAN wrote: »

one thing i want to know will the aerlingus shares go up or down if O'leary buys it

And if we get a No, do Ganleys friends benefit?

We can all play this game.

One thing seems odd, why would Ryanair support an EU that can "supposedly" increase Corporation Tax?

Johnboy1951 · 29-09-2009 2:28am

meglome wrote: »

This help?

No, as you have just quoted the same text as I did when I first posted on the subject and made the comments which I have been queried on.

Scofflaw · 29-09-2009 2:38am

I think it's fairly clear that you can take from this what you prefer. However, the original "quote" was entirely made up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome · 29-09-2009 2:55am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

No, as you have just quoted the same text as I did when I first posted on the subject and made the comments which I have been queried on.

Sorry I thought it was quite obvious what he meant but I suppose we could try and ask O'Leary himself.

Sam Vimes · 29-09-2009 10:43am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

No, as you have just quoted the same text as I did when I first posted on the subject and made the comments which I have been queried on.

Johnboy, it's abundantly clear what was meant. He gave his reasons for campaigning for a yes vote as:

1. The government is incompetent
2. I think it's in the best interest of the Irish economy and the nearly 500,000 people who will be unemployed at the end of the year.

And he mentioned in the context of the interview, as the question Yates asked was about buying Aer Lingus, that the government's incompetence is preventing him from buying them. He was asked if he was trying to get approval from the European commission by campaigning for a yes and he explained that they have no say in the matter. If you want to believe he said something else you can but it will just be one more thing to add to list list of lies and half truths propping up the no side

Cannibal Ox · 29-09-2009 10:49am

Declan Ganley just used this on a debate on Pat Kenny in the OP's context. Hilarious. What was almost as funny, not a single of the opposition picked up on it. If only they read boards.ie :pac:

PopeBuckfastXVI · 29-09-2009 10:51am

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

If only they read boards.ie :pac:

If I had a cent for every time I had this thought about the 'yes' side during this campaign, I could out poster Coir and Libertas put together...

K-9 · 29-09-2009 1:25pm

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Declan Ganley just used this on a debate on Pat Kenny in the OP's context. Hilarious. What was almost as funny, not a single of the opposition picked up on it. If only they read boards.ie :pac:

They really should. It would help when the likes of Joe Higgins incorrectly quote Articles or leave bits out.

jacool · 29-09-2009 2:47pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He gave his reasons for campaigning for a yes vote as:
1. The government is incompetent
2. I think it's in the best interest of the Irish economy and the nearly 500,000 people who will be unemployed at the end of the year.

The first reason seems ridiculous, as ridiculous as people who voted NO first time round for that reason. He can justify it as a reason for him campaigning if a) he says the government is incompetent in its campaign (true)
b) he thinks that some pan-European body will take power from our "incompetents", which would be very interesting.
His second reason, if true, is simple logic for him as a businessman.

I sincerely hope that O'Leary is now removed from "political" debate as he was an ignoramus when up against Ganley on TV last week.

Sam Vimes · 29-09-2009 2:51pm

jacool wrote: »

The first reason seems ridiculous, as ridiculous as people who voted NO first time round for that reason. He can justify it as a reason for him campaigning if a) he says the government is incompetent in its campaign (true)
b) he thinks that some pan-European body will take power from our "incompetents", which would be very interesting.
His second reason, if true, is simple logic for him as a businessman.

I sincerely hope that O'Leary is now removed from "political" debate as he was an ignoramus when up against Ganley on TV last week.

It's a) the government is incompetent in its campaign. No rational person thinks b) is a possibility of he Lisbon treaty

prinz · 29-09-2009 2:54pm

jacool wrote: »

I sincerely hope that O'Leary is now removed from "political" debate as he
was an ignoramus when up against Ganley on TV last week.

And Ganley is what exactly.... a gentleman?

The last chunk of an hour-long debate focussed on militarisation, where Mr De Rossa dismissed Mr Ganley's point.
What appeared to irk Mr Ganley was a comment from Mr De Rossa about links to the US establishment.
But when the show ended, they really let loose off air with Ganley calling Mr de Rossa "a f****ing traitor" and repeatedly saying, "I know what your agenda is".
Mr De Rossa retorted with an ungentlemanly comment....Mr Ganley hit back with a description of Mr De Rossa, beginning with the letter 'P', which wasn't patriot..

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ganley-de-rossa-turn-air-blue-after-radio-row-1898172.html

rumour · 29-09-2009 2:59pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Potentially being the operative word. It's not a certainty that Ireland's place in Europe would be affected by a No vote, and yet the Yes side's greatest leverage is to convince people that the country is fcuked if we vote No

Well facing up to reality its ****ed with or without Lisbon, after the referendum this will all become clearer:(.
We do need the ECB to lend to us as generally no one else will, perhaps the IMF

rumour · 29-09-2009 3:06pm

DUBLINHITMAN wrote: »

one thing i want to know will the aerlingus shares go up or down if O'leary buys it

Good question, I'd gamble up but don't expect dividends.

O'Leary admits on TV3 that Ryanairs Yes campaign is all about getting Aer Lingus

Comments