Bruton CLanger

steelcityblues

Richard Bruton just said on the Last Word debate, that if a NO vote is carried on May 31, 'we'll have to vote again.' :pac:

This could be a game changer.

beeftotheheels

steelcityblues wrote: »

Richard Bruton just said on the Last Word debate, that if a NO vote is carried on May 31, 'we'll have to vote again.' :pac:

This could be a game changer.

For pities sack.

If the Irish people vote to run the risk of not getting future funds we may need, if it turns out we need those funds then it would be reckless in the extreme for the Irish Government not to give us a second chance to get it right.

Did you not hear Mary Lou's entire future funding plan is to play chicken with the Troika, a game of chicken which really ain't working out so well for Greece at the moment.

If she's wrong, as seems highly likely, she'll be begging the Government to run the referendum again.

steelcityblues

beeftotheheels wrote: »

For pities sack.

If the Irish people vote to run the risk of not getting future funds we may need, if it turns out we need those funds then it would be reckless in the extreme for the Irish Government not to give us a second chance to get it right.

Did you not hear Mary Lou's entire future funding plan is to play chicken with the Troika, a game of chicken which really ain't working out so well for Greece at the moment.

If she's wrong, as seems highly likely, she'll be begging the Government to run the referendum again.

Take it you don't know what constitutes a gaffe?

They wanted to conceal this publicly, but why all their public statements of 'Ireland can't afford to go down', if this is what FG, and I assume Labour, were planning. A manipulation of the public.

SF are in no position to legislate for another referendum.

steelcityblues

He's backtracking now, but a large part of the audience is not buying it.

ambid

In fairness he withdrew the comment. Everybody makes mistakes. He made one, apologised, and withdrew the remark. Lets move on.

steelcityblues

ambid wrote: »

In fairness he withdrew the comment. Everybody makes mistakes. He made one, apologised, and withdrew the remark. Lets move on.

A 'mistake' only in that it came out on a show with thousands of listeners, instead of with his chums in private.

The next private meeting with Enda should be fun.

steelcityblues

James Reilly said on RTE that 'empathetically' there won't be a second vote.

So, we can establish that one of these two FG senior figures is talking crap.

meglome

steelcityblues wrote: »

Richard Bruton just said on the Last Word debate, that if a NO vote is carried on May 31, 'we'll have to vote again.' :pac:

This could be a game changer.

Actually he said it than shortly afterwards retracted it, in the same debate. Fluppin storm in a teacup.

meglome

steelcityblues wrote: »

Take it you don't know what constitutes a gaffe?

I'm sure there are many things that could be described as a gaffe. The problem is pretty much anything this government says is gone over with a fine tooth comb and used as ammo against them and usually blown out of all proportion. It's not even that I'm defending the government I'm just sick of the exaggeration, misdirection and nonsense.

steelcityblues

meglome wrote: »

I'm sure there are many things that could be described as a gaffe. The problem is pretty much anything this government says is gone over with a fine tooth comb and used as ammo against them and usually blown out of all proportion. It's not even that I'm defending the government I'm just sick of the exaggeration, misdirection and nonsense.

You can't blame the usual bogeymen of shinners, socialists, Brits, cranks, and whoever else for what happened earlier. The mask slipped into a very public arena.

meglome

steelcityblues wrote: »

You can't blame the usual bogeymen of shinners, socialists, Brits, cranks, and whoever else for what happened earlier. The mask slipped into a very public arena.

I didn't blame anyone, you may want to reread what I said. I stated as a fact that given half a chance every last thing was blown out of proportion. Christ it's tiresome and it's a very dishonest debating tactic.

ambid

steelcityblues wrote: »

A 'mistake' only in that it came out on a show with thousands of listeners, instead of with his chums in private.

The next private meeting with Enda should be fun.

He withdrew the comment and apologised. What more do you want him to do?

steelcityblues

ambid wrote: »

He withdrew the comment and apologised. What more do you want him to do?

Nothing. He said what he said.

The Waltzing Consumer

meglome wrote: »

I didn't blame anyone, you may want to reread what I said. I stated as a fact that given half a chance every last thing was blown out of proportion. Christ it's tiresome and it's a very dishonest debating tactic.

True, this will be the big selling point now for the No side :rolleyes:

Last week it was that Enda Kenny, someone who debates pretty much every day in the public sphere was not interested in doing a debate on a private TV channel, now it will be this.

It shows a certain weakness of the No side when these slip ups or participation in every single offered debate is more important then the actual treaty in these campagins. You would think they might not even want to talk about the treaty :eek:

It all reminds me of those negative attack ads the Republicans in America are stereotyped for.

steelcityblues

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

True, this will be the big selling point now for the No side :rolleyes:

Last week it was that Enda Kenny, someone who debates pretty much every day in the public sphere was not interested in doing a debate on a private TV channel, now it will be this.

It shows a certain weakness of the No side when these slip ups or participation in every single offered debate is more important then the actual treaty in these campagins. You would think they might not even want to talk about the treaty :eek:

It all reminds me of those negative attack ads the Republicans in America are stereotyped for.

Generalisation much.

Are you not reading the other popular thread, where plenty of yes supporters are criticising a politician from the UK for publicly speaking on 'our' Treaty?

Myrddin

ambid wrote: »

He withdrew the comment and apologised. What more do you want him to do?

Tell the truth?

ambid

steelcityblues wrote: »

Nothing. He said what he said.

EnterNow wrote: »

Tell the truth?

I really don't understand this. People complain when politicans don't apologise for making a mistake, and then complain when politicans do apologise for making a mistake.

If you expect they will be perfect and never make a mistake in a debate then that is incredibly naive.

Bruton has his faults, but is universally regarded as honest by anybody who knows what they're talking about. To believe he is being dishonest is absurd. Enjoy your cynicism, I hope it makes you happy.

pconn062

steelcityblues wrote: »

Generalisation much.

Are you not reading the other popular thread, where plenty of yes supporters are criticising a politician from the UK for publicly speaking on 'our' Treaty?

Nigel Farage isn't exactly any old UK politician though is he? He's about as extreme as they come, one step away from Nick Griffin and his "political views". And I'm no Michael Martin fan but his comments to Martin on the Last Word were out of line.

The Waltzing Consumer

steelcityblues wrote: »

Generalisation much.

Are you not reading the other popular thread, where plenty of yes supporters are criticising a politician from the UK for publicly speaking on 'our' Treaty?

Ah is that the guy who called Michael Martin an economic collaborator with nazis on the debate? That is a lovely way to behave when you come campaigning into our country. :rolleyes:

Might not agree with you here stellcityblues about Bruton, but why would you defending this Farrage guy?

Ozymandius2011

pconn062 wrote: »

Nigel Farage isn't exactly any old UK politician though is he? He's about as extreme as they come, one step away from Nick Griffin and his "political views". And I'm no Michael Martin fan but his comments to Martin on the Last Word were out of line.

I think the yes camp wanted Farage to be the story of this debate but instead it's Bruton.

steelcityblues

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Ah is that the guy who called Michael Martin an economic collaborator with nazis on the debate? That is a lovely way to behave when you come campaigning into our country. :rolleyes:

Might not agree with you here stellcityblues about Bruton, but why would you defending this Farrage guy?

Don't like Farage much either, and he is more hyperbolic compared to some other no side speakers - just challenging your assertion that only no people avoid talking about the issues of the Treaty. Read the thread - it is all about Farage.

Anyway, this is too big of a gaffe to not have a discussion about.

oscarBravo

steelcityblues wrote: »

He said what he said.

He said something you agree with, and you believe it to be true. He retracted and apologised, and you believe that to be false.

There's a technical term for that.

steelcityblues

oscarBravo wrote: »

He said something you agree with, and you believe it to be true. He retracted and apologised, and you believe that to be false.

There's a technical term for that.

Why should he apologise if the first thing he said was true?

oscarBravo

It seems that what he said was:

I suppose we will have to say that we all need access to this and I think Ireland will be looking to say, ‘Can we vote again?’

Somehow that morphed into

'we'll have to vote again.'

The pervasive dishonesty that seems to be an accepted aspect of every referendum campaign in this country is really starting to sicken me. Not only are we too ignorant as an electorate to vote on these issues; if we're not capable of discussing them honestly, then frankly we don't deserve to vote on them.

BeardyFunzo

Have a listen from about 18.30 mins in:

http://media.todayfm.com/listenback/98/thursday/2/popup

The question he was asked was (in essence) What is plan B? What are you going to say to your counterparts in europe?

We will need access to this fund. And I think Ireland will be looking to say 'Can we vote again'. We will need access to this fund.

So either there is no plan B (which considering this is a government we are talking about is pretty messed up) or plan is Vote again. And presumably again until we get it right.

Yakuza

I was in the room where the broadcast of the debate was taking place, he knew he'd dropped a clanger as soon as the words came out of his mouth. I think he genuinely mis-spoke, and he retracted it fairly quickly afterwards. His body language was somewhat dejected for the rest of the debate, esp when his voice came over the air when he was quoted during the 6:00 news slot (we were waiting while the news was being broadcast from base). The room was "scarleh for him" . Well some (about half) of the room was, the rest looked to have been delighted that such a gaffe went out on air.

The words "brown envelope" probably cost Sean Gallahger the presidency - sometimes a mistake can be costly.

PCPhoto

it could possibly be a euro fallback plan - in the event its not passed/ratified.

change wording etc ...ask for a vote again ....its not like it hasn't happened before in Ireland especially.

if we get a NO vote - then once the changes are made do we have to vote again ?? (I doubt it - we'll just be told the changes are minor and do not change the overall thing)

I'm voting NO - because I believe the referendum is mainly to allow our government the facility of another bailout - which will increase our austerity for longer....if we give our politicians a YES they can continue to borrow and waste public money.

meglome

PCPhoto wrote: »

I'm voting NO - because I believe the referendum is mainly to allow our government the facility of another bailout - which will increase our austerity for longer....if we give our politicians a YES they can continue to borrow and waste public money.

Well if that's why you're voting no you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's not new:

1. the 3% deficit rule
2. the 60% debt rule
3. the structural balance rule
4. the penalties and procedures attached to breaches of the rules

What's new:

1. transposing the fiscal rules into national law
2. creating a national 'correction mechanism'
3. making 1 and 2 subject to a ruling of the CJEU
4. the voting mechanism for determining whether the rules have been breached, which moves from requiring majority to support to requiring a majority to block

That's more or less it, plus the ESM conditionality. After all, it's only 11 pages.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems that what he said was: Somehow that morphed into The pervasive dishonesty that seems to be an accepted aspect of every referendum campaign in this country is really starting to sicken me. Not only are we too ignorant as an electorate to vote on these issues; if we're not capable of discussing them honestly, then frankly we don't deserve to vote on them.

Either statement though seems to contradict the official view up to now (which statements since from Kenny, Reilly and Coveney have attempted to resurrect since as reported in the press) that a second referendum was out of the question. That does appear to call into question the bona-fides of the government with respect to informing us of their true intentions in the event of a no vote.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Either statement though seems to contradict the official view up to now ... that a second referendum was out of the question.

Yes, I'm aware that it suits a certain political point-scoring perspective to interpret his words that way. It's not the only possible interpretation of what he said; it's not even the most likely interpretation of what he said; and the continued insistence that it's the only thing he could possibly have meant illustrates my point that winning an argument is more important than honesty or integrity in Irish referendum debates.

RandomName2

steelcityblues wrote: »

Richard Bruton just said on the Last Word debate, that if a NO vote is carried on May 31, 'we'll have to vote again.' :pac:

This could be a game changer.

If it being passed in Ireland was necessary for the treaty to come into force we would be forced to vote until it passed. Bruton quickly retracted his statement because (a) it sounds bad and (b) he remembered we don't actually have a veto.

ixtlan

Well... this is a rock and a hard place situation. And I am a yes voter.

Regardless of what anyone has said, I believe the reality is that up until a few weeks before we run out of money we could have a second vote, if there was a no this time. We know the government will continue with current policy yes or no... and come next year there are several paths that may be travelled.

1/ The Eurozone may completely collapse, in which case a yes/no will be irrelevant.
2/ The EU will find some kind of solution which is seen to be workable, changing either the terms of the treaty or more likely changing the context of it (with a second treaty maybe). If that happens Ireland will be approaching the funding cliff with no guaranteed funds. One might expect a desperate scramble at that point to get a solution to the "Irish" problem.

So, with me having said that, do you think I favour postponing the vote until just before the cliff so that it's vote yes, or default, the week before disaster? That would be pretty dumb wouldn't it? Economic recovery depends on confidence. Regardless of what the EU does, a no vote will drastically reduce Irish business confidence right now. A yes vote, will at least keep things stable here, and then it's up to the EU (including Ireland) to find a solution to the bigger picture. I don't buy into the no side theory that we should do our best to precipitate a crisis to force attention to the problem. In fact our no vote is likely to be noise in the bigger Eurozone picture... except to business here.

Something else that occurs to me is that the no side position that a no strengthens the government's negotiating hand is nonsense. What it tells the EU is that this is a weak weak government which can't be trusted to implement any agreement reached. The no side probably cheer that description... and yet they think this is a good thing for us to get a good deal?

So Richard Bruton was stating what everyone was thinking, including some vocal parts of the no side who want a second vote if they feel something has been achieved (Declan Ganley, Shane Ross etc). The thing Bruton and the government realise is that while there could be a second vote, a failure to ratify now is just going to cause more pain for us right now from a confidence point of view, and will do nothing to force an EU solution because there are already far bigger issues forcing that (Greece and Spain).

Ix.

GSF

Having heard the full quote the furore sounds like a childish word game. Of course if we are up the creek without a paddle & nobody wants to lend to us at less than loan shark rates, we will seek to get access to bailout funds. If that means a 2nd referendum to achieve that, we'd be mad not to do that.

View

Personally, I suspect the mere possibility that we might have a second referendum complete with talk of GDP, structural deficits etc will reduce a large chunk of the population to despair.