The Frontline Fiscal Treaty debate

take everything

Don't see a thread on this.
Anyone watching it?

Janedoe10

Why do the likes of ganely always look so smug when he is on the "no" side of any vote campaign .
Should not all talkers talk about their vested interests on why they are on the no or yes band wagan. As we know none of these who are in opposition or for that matter are looking out for themselves.

I have to say we can't gamble with our future and cut off the hand that feeds us . I don't want to go down the way of greece . Do they the "no" guys not deal with that .. ?
Why doesn't the gov be straight with what happens if there is a no result and don't say crap like more taxes .

hatrickpatrick

...has that whole Sean Gallagher tweet business essentially killed the idea of sending in comments?
Anyone know where you can send comments to if it's still possible? I'm guessing it's not Twitter anyway

El Weirdo

Moved from AH ==> Television.

take everything

More a squabble than a debate so far.

hatrickpatrick

Can you still text or email with comments to be read out?

dublinman1990

Mary Lou McDonald had referred to the other treaty that established a fund for the euro. Wondering myself what it is though.

Everyone talking over each other is worse rather than better IMO. Good thing that Pat came in to give out to a farmer of all people in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy. I mean what the hell was that all about? The Farmers for NO group have the likes of Ming Flanagan and Thomas Pringle on their side with one probably spurting out guff.

There was no need for that farmer to interrupt the debate about farming. Money is the topic in discussion and growing the euro out of the ground or out of the blooming trees is not essential.

pixelburp

Fair play to Pat (and his production team I guess for telling him about the calls) in instructing the four debaters to stop shouting over each other, it was getting ludicruous. Pathetic stuff from apparent adults.

Mind you, slightly taken aback by Kenny's slight explosion in response to the farmer's rant about the CAP. I wonder if that abrupt commercial break was for him to tell the audience in no uncertain terms to stick to the treaty & not bring up all the tangential rants

Lapin

Just in the door.

The 2 minutes I saw before the ads looked lively.

Did I miss much ?

CMpunked

Its a good debate, but it seems to be the same points being harped on by both sides.

Lapin

Gilmore appears ruffled.

pixelburp

RHUBARB-RHUBARB-RHUBARB-SHOUT-SHOUT-RHUBARB-SHOUT-RHUBARB

Yeah, I'm spoiling my vote. Politics are a farce really.

vicwatson

Nora Casey - like why is she there. pain in the arse

Humans eh!

But who the hell will take the ring into Mordor?

CMpunked

Feck me that was a clusterbuck.
I'm still voting no but would have liked some of the concerns about the treaty hit from the yes side instead of "Oh look at you, you're not even from here!" childish rubbish.

TheChizler

Is there any point to having this debate? As pointed out in the Examiner today, I feel all anyone will remember will be any gaffes or controversy coming from it.

subway

You spelt debacle wrong

Lapin

pixelburp wrote: »

RHUBARB-RHUBARB-RHUBARB-SHOUT-SHOUT-RHUBARB-SHOUT-RHUBARB

Yeah, I'm spoiling my vote. Politics are a farce really.

Humans eh! wrote: »

But who the hell will take the ring into Mordor?

El Weirdo wrote: »

Moved from AH ==> Television.

Are you sure ?

pixelburp

The audience should take some of the blame, especially as the debate wore on. While those at the front (generally) heeded the request to stop shouting, the audience simply got worse & worse, even trying to shout over Kenny's final remarks. Juvenile stuff.

Lapin wrote:

Are you sure ?

I'm spoiling my vote because making an informed decision about this treaty is impossible; I'll exercise my democratic right at the ballot box of course, it just won't be on a Yes/No vote I can't decide on.

Yes I agree - why was Nora Casey on the panel? She just kept banging on about her business - think Ganley was actually very good and very succinct this time out. Gilmore was ruffled to be sure. The No's came out on top.:D

Humans eh!

TheChizler wrote: »

Is there any point to having this debate? As pointed out in the Examiner today, I feel all anyone will remember will be any gaffes or controversy coming from it.

As with most political debates, a large percentage of viewers have already made up their minds and just watch in the hope (high probability) that someone will make a gaffe and/or make a cnut of themselves and provide a bit of smug smartarsery for tomorrow's papers.

Now Pat Rabbite and Mickey Noonan's participation would have raised the gaffe factor by 200% had they been involved.

Einhard

vicwatson wrote: »

Nora Casey - like why is she there. pain in the arse

Why is Ganley there? She's there to provide a somewhat none politically partisan standpoint. I thought she was very good actually. At least she spoke about the contents of the trary unlike Ganley and MacDonald who psoke about everything but.

CMpunked wrote: »

Feck me that was a clusterbuck.
I'm still voting no but would have liked some of the concerns about the treaty hit from the yes side instead of "Oh look at you, you're not even from here!" childish rubbish.

Ah come off it now. It was a flippant remark, and given that she gave clear unambiguous reasons in support of the treaty it's a bit much to seek to boil her controbution down to that one point. Ganley made a meal out of it as only he can- xenophobia my aras!

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm spoiling my vote because making an informed decision about this treaty is impossible; I'll exercise my democratic right at the ballot box of course, it just won't be on a Yes/No vote I can't decide on.

Is it impossible? I'm no genius, but the treaty seems relatively straightforward to me. Check out the Referendum Commission's website for some good, non-partisan info on the treaty.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I agree - why was Nora Casey on the panel? She just kept banging on about her business - think Ganley was actually very good and very succinct this time out. Gilmore was ruffled to be sure. The No's came out on top.:D

Ganley was rubbish. Seriously, he actually conceded most of the points that he was attempting to make. He's a fraud, and it beggars belief that he's so successful at pulling the wool over the eyes of so many people. At one point, he went on for a few minutes about how the treaty would lead to tax harmonisation. Then Gilmore pointed out that it had absolutely nothing to do with tax harmonisation, and Ganley actually agreed with him. He didn't argue the treaty at all; he just sought to pretend it was about everything that it's not. The treaty has nothing to do with the bank bailout; it has nothing to fdo with the need to cut our deficit; it has nothing to do with CAP, with bog cutting, with or whatever guff the No camp seek to tag it with.

I'm voting Yes. It wasn;t an easy decision. There are compelling reasons to vote No. The problem however, is that the No camp don't address them, but rather seek to obfuscate and dissemble, and unfortunately it seems, too many people are willing to be fooled.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

I'm voting Yes. It wasn;t an easy decision. There are compelling reasons to vote No. The problem however, is that the No camp don't address them, but rather seek to obfuscate and dissemble, and unfortunately it seems, too many people are willing to be fooled.

You have 'compelling reasons' to vote No but because you can't find anyone to tell you that you are right you are going to vote Yes?
That's amazing. No wonder we are fooked.

CMpunked

Einhard wrote: »

Ah come off it now. It was a flippant remark, and given that she gave clear unambiguous reasons in support of the treaty it's a bit much to seek to boil her controbution down to that one point. Ganley made a meal out of it as only he can- xenophobia my aras!

I wasnt saying anything about her particular comment, but more as an example of childish comments which were made from both sides.

I'm voting Yes. It wasn;t an easy decision. There are compelling reasons to vote No. The problem however, is that the No camp don't address them, but rather seek to obfuscate and dissemble, and unfortunately it seems, too many people are willing to be fooled.

Theres one question which Gilmore was faced with which i wish he answered fully, or at least expanded on. Where will the cuts be made to reduce the GDP down to the percentage that the treaty will be asking for.

I know he said "Make jobs, investment, stability etc." But these are easily said words which wont mean anything if the treaty is ratified just like they dont mean anything when they were written in the party manifestos pre-elections. (By all parties, i might add.)

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have 'compelling reasons' to vote No but because you can't find anyone to tell you that you are right you are going to vote Yes?
That's amazing. No wonder we are fooked.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. I don't know how you managed to deduce that meaning from what I posted. Put simply: there are decent reasons to vote Yes, and decent reasons to vote No. My problem with the No camp however, is that they spend all their time on issues that have nothing to do with the treaty, rather than actually discussing why a Yes would, in their opinion, be a bad idea. I've made my mind up based on my reading of the treaty and the related literature; the No side will not change my mind. That doesn;t mean i can't be annoyed at the cheapness of their campaign.

Einhard

CMpunked wrote: »

I wasnt saying anything about her particular comment, but more as an example of childish comments which were made from both sides.

That's fair enough. i do think though that Ganley went to town on it- xenophobia?

Theres one question which Gilmore was faced with which i wish he answered fully, or at least expanded on. Where will the cuts be made to reduce the GDP down to the percentage that the treaty will be asking for.

I'm unde rno illusion but that cuts will have to be made to meet the targets set out. However, they'd have to be made with or without the treaty. People don't seem to grasp that we're spending €13 billion more this year than we'll take in in taxes, and only a tiny amount of that deficit has anything to do with the bank bailout.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

I'm voting Yes. It wasn;t an easy decision. There are compelling reasons to vote No. The problem however, is that the No camp don't address them, but rather seek to obfuscate and dissemble, and unfortunately it seems, too many people are willing to be fooled.

That's what you said ^ You kept 'what you meant' to yourself.:rolleyes:

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's what you said ^ You kept 'what you meant' to yourself.:rolleyes:

Ok I'm gonna break this down for you.

I'm voting Yes.

Pretty self-explanatory.

It wasn;t an easy decision.

I gave both sides a fair bit of though, weighing the pros and cons etc.

There are compelling reasons to vote No.

Although I'm voting Yes, it's not a black and white issue. There are good reasons that the No side could marshall in their arguments. It's just that, for me, the pros of voting Yes outweigh the pros of voting No.

The problem however, is that the No camp don't address them, but rather seek to obfuscate and dissemble, and unfortunately it seems, too many people are willing to be fooled.

My problem with the No side is that, although there are good reasons to vote No, they too often ignore them, and instead seek to confuse the public by making the treaty into something that it's not- about bank bailouts, about tax harmonisation etc.


So, you see, what i said is exactly what I meant. I'm not sure how I could have made that any more clearer.

BTW: the use of this fellow :rolleyes: is generally an illustration that the user doesn't have much to say. When it's used by someone who can;t even comprehend a simple post, it's pretty pathetic to be honest.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

I'm voting Yes. It wasn;t an easy decision. There are compelling reasons to vote No. The problem however, is that the No camp don't address them, but rather seek to obfuscate and dissemble, and unfortunately it seems, too many people are willing to be fooled.

The problem with your writing is that it makes a certain sense to you but a different one to everyone else.
You said 'I'm voting Yes. (but didn't qualify why you where doing that) Then you say that there are 'compelling reasons' to vote No. (which leads your dear reader to think that no such 'compelling reasons' exist to vote Yes) Then you go on to say that 'The problem however is that...' (what 'problem' your dear reader asks himself? Well obviously the problem must be that you can't vote No, because other No voters are being silly and aren't talking about the 'compelling reasons' you have. So you have decided that they must'nt be compelling....so I'll just vote Yes.).

That's how it came across. I didn't write it, you did, I read it as is and didn't assume anything.

pixelburp

Einhard wrote: »

Is it impossible? I'm no genius, but the treaty seems relatively straightforward to me. Check out the Referendum Commission's website for some good, non-partisan info on the treaty.

My problem is not understanding the treaty, or its mechanics & minutiae, it's about being happy with the consequences of voting one way or the other. Both sides of the 'debate' have successfully terrified me with what would happen were I to vote the other way; it now feels that no matter what way my conscience springs, I'm ultimately dooming the nation thanks to an intensive campaign of scaremongering. So ultimately the only logical avenue I can take is to spite both camps & spoil my vote.

Storm 10

On Pat Kenny this morning they said that Ganley was on another radio interview recently and he was asked about his involvement in a Swiss bank, he refused to answer the question and went off the topic.

I cannot understand that man he pokes his head out when it suits him to get some attention, he wont lose either way its the likes of us that will.

Yes all the way for me.

CMpunked

Storm 10 wrote: »

On Pat Kenny this morning they said that Ganley was on another radio interview recently and he was asked about his involvement in a Swiss bank, he refused to answer the question and went off the topic.

But what does that make any difference to the treaty conversation?

Technocentral

Storm 10 wrote: »

On Pat Kenny this morning they said that Ganley was on another radio interview recently and he was asked about his involvement in a Swiss bank, he refused to answer the question and went off the topic.

I cannot understand that man he pokes his head out when it suits him to get some attention, he wont lose either way its the likes of us that will.

Yes all the way for me.

Don't like Ganley in the slightest, find him a bit sinister actually but him and Casey were the best on the debate. I'm not going to be jumping out of bed on the 31st to run along and vote yes with any enthusiasm but I'm doing it after weighing up the possible consequences of either outcome and a no is the most scary. That "Creameries" farmer was right in conclusion "It's best to not need funds but have it there than need it and not have it there" 'nuff said.

FishBowel

Janedoe10 wrote: »

Why do the likes of ganely always look so smug when he is on the "no" side of any vote campaign .

He's smarter and more successful than the other three put together. Also, he's richer than Pat kenny.

humanji

CMpunked wrote: »

But what does that make any difference to the treaty conversation?

The fact that he may have a financial incentive to steer Ireland to say no is quite sinister. Is he campaigning for Ireland or for himself?