nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

LISBON - What way will Clare vote this time?

drunken_munky52

The results of Lisbon 1, showed that Clare voted in favour of the treaty. That is likely to happen again... or is it?

Just like NAMA, Lisbon may be designed purely to put even more power in the hands of a few rich elite, and the it appears the masses are been scare mongered into thinking that voting yes puts the people first.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PopeBuckfastXVI

theasylumkey wrote: »

Correct.......will you be back to me in a year asking me if i am sure i understood what i am saying no to & am i sure i dont want to say YES???

[/I]

Have a read of this first......

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0320/1224243121561.html

“EU member states have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters since accession,” Ms Uí Aodha said.

Where did her figures come from?

Is mise le key

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

“EU member states have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters since accession,” Ms Uí Aodha said.

Where did her figures come from?

Did you even read my last post:rolleyes:

You cling to numbers on paper like it is the lords word not to be questioned.......did it ever cross your mind that it may not be as transparent & cleancut as you think it is.

drunken_munky52

Sensitive top level negotiations, back-door channels, and clandestine meetings are all common phrases used in describing how governments and their representatives conduct themselves while pursuing the aims and ambitions concerned with the national interest. It is not of course in the national interest for anyone who voted in these governments to have any knowledge of these secret arrangements, let alone question them. By the time the deal is done, the spin prepared, and the project put into motion it is too late for the citizen to halt the momentum.

Ambitious programs that would have been given a green light once the Lisbon Treaty was brought into force on its' projected date of January 1, 2009 are not necessarily doomed just because the referendum was rejected by the Irish. Plans for European Embassies to be managed by a new diplomatic corps, a new unaccountable Interior Ministry, and an elite military force headed up by France may still see the light of day. Why all the duplicity, secrecy, and covert activity?

The countries of the world, both great and small, are arming themselves with new alliances, agreements, and treaties in preparation for the Resource Race. There is a concerted effort by these countries to align favourably with other nations for protection, prosperity, and provisions for the coming days. If the European Union goes ahead with it's military, expansionist, and protectionist policies this resource race will only escalate as the arms race did. We need to find equitable solutions for the coming time when there will be less natural resources to go around before the nations get to a point of armed conflict.

PopeBuckfastXVI

theasylumkey wrote: »

Did you even read my last post:rolleyes:

1. Quote a number.
2. Be asked for proof.
3. Claim numbers aren't important.
4. ???
5. Profit.

When you use a number as a central tenet of your entire argument, when your argument relies on that number being correct, then the veracity of that number becomes absolutely crucial to your proof.

Your number, like your argument, is hereby refuted due to lack of evidence.

Is mise le key

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

1. Quote a number.
2. Be asked for proof.
3. Claim numbers aren't important.
4. ???
5. Profit.

When you use a number as a central tenet of your entire argument, when your argument relies on that number being correct, then the veracity of that number becomes absolutely crucial to your proof.

Your number, like your argument, is hereby refuted due to lack of evidence.

Who claimed numbers are not important......they are important, what your missing your reverance is you are entirley basing your argument on what is being presented to you written on a piece of paper from EU politicians as irrefutable fact because; 'it is printed on paper therefore it must be'
Have you ever once even for a brief moment allowed the blaphemous thought enter your head that the people that run these institutions are deceiptful in order to further their political agenda??
If your answer is no then you are naive in the extreme as politicians are almost all deceitful to further their own agenda.
The article in the times is from the IFO who one could argue are experts in their field & reference the unaccountable fishing that goes on from spanish trawlers. How much has been factored in on paper by the EU officials that compiled the report around the unaccountable fishing that goes on???
The figure will obviously rise substantially if factored in what is not accountable. Whether it is legal or illegal fishing the figure is without doubt innaccurate that is being spun out of europe, the fact is that europe has benefitted masivley from irelands fishing waters & we have well paid our way.

That buckfast is affecting your pious judgement your worship. Should have stuck to the oozo like John Paul.:D

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

Who claimed numbers are not important......they are important, what your missing your reverance is you are entirley basing your argument on what is being presented to you written on a piece of paper from EU politicians as irrefutable fact because; 'it is printed on paper therefore it must be'
Have you ever once even for a brief moment allowed the blaphemous thought enter your head that the people that run these institutions are deceiptful in order to further their political agenda??
If your answer is no then you are naive in the extreme as politicians are almost all deceitful to further their own agenda.
The article in the times is from the IFO who one could argue are experts in their field & reference the unaccountable fishing that goes on from spanish trawlers. How much has been factored in on paper by the EU officials that compiled the report around the unaccountable fishing that goes on???
The figure will obviously rise substantially if factored in what is not accountable. Whether it is legal or illegal fishing the figure is without doubt innaccurate that is being spun out of europe, the fact is that europe has benefitted masivley from irelands fishing waters & we have well paid our way.

That buckfast is affecting your pious judgement your worship. Should have stuck to the oozo like John Paul.:D

The worst thing is I fear you're serious.

That €200 billion number is used quite a bit, or it's sometimes €180 billion, or even €300 billion. But not one person can explain where the number came from.

The total fish taken from Irish waters since 1972 is something like 8.5 billion with the Irish taking up to half of that. So that would suggest the EU have given us 41 billion and we've give the EU countries 4.3 billion, still seems like we got an amazing deal now doesn't it.

Let's imagine I said the EU had given us €200 billion, the first thing I'd be asked is to prove that number is correct. But all we see from the No campaign is avoiding the question. Either you can prove that number to be correct or your can't.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

The worst thing is I fear you're serious.

That €200 billion number is used quite a bit, or it's sometimes €180 billion, or even €300 billion. But not one person can explain where the number came from.

The total fish taken from Irish waters since 1972 is something like 8.5 billion with the Irish taking up to half of that. So that would suggest the EU have given us 41 billion and we've give the EU countries 4.3 billion, still seems like we got an amazing deal now doesn't it.

Let's imagine I said the EU had given us €200 billion, the first thing I'd be asked is to prove that number is correct. But all we see from the No campaign is avoiding the question. Either you can prove that number to be correct or your can't.

Spoken like a good little Fianna Fail/EU foot soldier;)
Just like when the nazi's gassed 6 million jews......oh sorry i'll retract that as it cant be shown on a report as to who, where & when so it must be exaggerated & ficticious........You live in a Black & White world chief.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

Spoken like a good little Fianna Fail/EU foot soldier;)
Just like when the nazi's gassed 6 million jews......oh sorry i'll retract that as it cant be shown on a report as to who, where & when so it must be exaggerated & ficticious........You live in a Black & White world chief.

What the ****.

I hate Fianna Fail, I wouldn't piss on them is they were on fire, to put it bluntly. And you seem to be suggesting I don't think six million Jews were killed in the holocaust.

I feel very much like telling you what I think, what I really think, about what you've just said. But instead I'll let people read for themselves and see the kind of people campaigning for the No vote.

Seriously do any of you want to be associated with this guy?

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

What the ****.

I hate Fianna Fail, I wouldn't piss on them is they were on fire, to put it bluntly. And you seem to be suggesting I don't think six million Jews were killed in the holocaust.

I feel very much like telling you what I think, what I really think, about what you've just said. But instead I'll let people read for themselves and see the kind of people campaigning for the No vote.

Seriously do any of you want to be associated with this guy?

Now dont try to fire it up into something its not.....if you read between the lines i was illustrating how absurd it is to soleley only accept somthing if it can be documented & proven with the actual numbers on record ready to be presented in whatever format......there was no suggestion at all that anyone that has been posting on this topic is of that opinion & i honestly dont as if i did i would not give you the time of day to put it mildly, but that you all in the YES side seem to be stuck on the train of thought that it all has to be documented & recorded to be fact. Your attempt to vilify the NO side by trying to purposley twist the context of my previous post which is relevant to all the posts before it is in keeping with the sustained attempt to pass off any one who opposes the YES side as some sort of crack pot.

If you are not going to keep the context of a post & try to put word into my mouth about you that simply were not said or implied then you have lost all credibility as someone who can debate openly & honestly.
I may have shocked you with the example that was used but that was the point to show how in history when people ignore what is actually happening & only beleive what is being presented to them doesnt mean that it is accurate.
I may have blown my top in the past which i have apologised for but at least i am straight with my words & have my integrity.

Turtwig

theasylumkey wrote: »

if you read between the lines i was illustrating how absurd it is to solely only accept something if it can be documented & proven with the actual numbers on record ready to be presented in whatever format.......

That includes the sovereign independent and everything else (i.e links in your sig) too, though, doesn't it?

Is mise le key

Malty_T wrote: »

That includes the sovereign independent and everything else (i.e links in your sig) too, though, doesn't it?

Like i said before i have used many sources to come to my conclusion always with the knowledge that what you are presented with from any side will have to be assessed for its acuracy personally........when you have people who are passionate about their beliefs they can have clouded judgement & you have to see through it all to make an educated decision.
I have already admitted over the course of the last few days that i stood corrected on a snippet from the sovreign independant & am prepared to admit when i have been innaccurate but there is also alot in each of the links in my sig that is informative & needs to be looked at in an objective manner.
Propaganda is prevelant on both sides of any argument or people that are opposed to each other & should not be whole sale accepted when being presented to you but that does not mean there is no basis of fact behind any of the arguments put forward.

So to anyone who reads this post as is with all things in life.....make your own educated judgement after making your self informed through evalutaing what is out there & not just because it says it in Black & White on the pages of a document drwan up by the people who want obviously you to accept it as fact & truth.

How often do you get the truth from politicians?????

Very rarley if ever & you would advocate that we trust that this is all truth 100% & nothing shady could possibly be to foot......Very Naive.

PopeBuckfastXVI

theasylumkey wrote: »

Who claimed numbers are not important......they are important, what your missing your reverance is you are entirley basing your argument on what is being presented to you written on a piece of paper from EU politicians as irrefutable fact because; 'it is printed on paper therefore it must be'
Have you ever once even for a brief moment allowed the blaphemous thought enter your head that the people that run these institutions are deceiptful in order to further their political agenda??
If your answer is no then you are naive in the extreme as politicians are almost all deceitful to further their own agenda.
The article in the times is from the IFO who one could argue are experts in their field & reference the unaccountable fishing that goes on from spanish trawlers. How much has been factored in on paper by the EU officials that compiled the report around the unaccountable fishing that goes on???
The figure will obviously rise substantially if factored in what is not accountable. Whether it is legal or illegal fishing the figure is without doubt innaccurate that is being spun out of europe, the fact is that europe has benefitted masivley from irelands fishing waters & we have well paid our way.

That buckfast is affecting your pious judgement your worship. Should have stuck to the oozo like John Paul.:D

You don't have a source for the figure, you have someone repeating the same figure, but providing no evidence. You're just struggling and huffing and puffing to get out of it but your argument is holed below the waterline, if you'll forgive the pun.

Next...

Is mise le key

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You don't have a source for the figure, you have someone repeating the same figure, but providing no evidence. You're just struggling and huffing and puffing to get out of it but your argument is holed below the waterline, if you'll forgive the pun.

Next...

You have entirley missed the point of all i have been nattering on about your eminence........you are clinging to the belief that the facts & figures presented in black & white are the only source of truth regarding the whole issue........what if your facts & figure are being deliberatley tailored to influence your thinking on the matter......and what if the true figures are being witheld to create such an atmosphere.

It is entirley possible that your being misled by the politicians.

To put it in one line;

I dont trust them to have my best interest top of the agenda.

PopeBuckfastXVI

theasylumkey wrote: »

You have entirley missed the point of all i have been nattering on about your eminence........you are clinging to the belief that the facts & figures presented in black & white are the only source of truth regarding the whole issue........what if your facts & figure are being deliberatley tailored to influence your thinking on the matter......and what if the true figures are being witheld to create such an atmosphere.

It is entirley possible that your being misled by the politicians.

To put it in one line;

I dont trust them to have my best interest top of the agenda.

To put it in one line: You based your argument on a figure, which you cannot prove, or even provide any real evidence beyond hearsay for, therefore your argument is baseless.

Is mise le key

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To put it in one line: You based your argument on a figure, which you cannot prove, or even provide any real evidence beyond hearsay for, therefore your argument is baseless.

You dont want to have to admit that you may have had your mind made up for you with deceipt from proven untrustworthy politicians & dont like to the thought that the decisions you have come to may have not been independantly formulated & that people like myself are out of the control of the manipulation of such an insidious entity.......Bye now.;)

Turtwig

The Pope :To put it in one line: You based your argument on a figure, which you cannot prove, or even provide any real evidence beyond hearsay for, therefore your argument is baseless.

theasylumkey wrote: »

You dont want to have to admit that you may have had your mind made up for you with deceipt from proven untrustworthy politicians & dont like to the thought that the decisions you have come to may have not been independantly formulated & that people like myself are out of the control of the manipulation of such an insidious entity.......Bye now.;)

drunken_munky52

Malty_T wrote: »

That includes the sovereign independent and everything else (i.e links in your sig) too, though, doesn't it?

It seems to me that the words Truth and Fact are often used interchangeably. I say that there is a very significant difference between Fact and Truth, and that using them synonymously is a fallacy to be consciously avoided. I've come to understand the difference between Fact and Truth as this:

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago.

Now, facts may often be used to substantiate one's assertions on certain truths, and truths may be used to help us better understand certain facts. However, to assert a fact as a truth, or a truth as a fact, is backwards thinking, and antithetical to intelligible progress.

I know this may seem obvious to some, but I see plenty of people on this site, and in real life misjudging the values of certain assertions based on this misconception.

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

It seems to me that the words Truth and Fact are often used interchangeably. I say that there is a very significant difference between Fact and Truth, and that using them synonymously is a fallacy to be consciously avoided. I've come to understand the difference between Fact and Truth as this:

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago.

Now, facts may often be used to substantiate one's assertions on certain truths, and truths may be used to help us better understand certain facts. However, to assert a fact as a truth, or a truth as a fact, is backwards thinking, and antithetical to intelligible progress.

I know this may seem obvious to some, but I see plenty of people on this site, and in real life misjudging the values of certain assertions based on this misconception.

Wow drunken monkey that is so insightful.....:D
Its such a pity you dont have the actual intelligence to come up with or understand something like this yourself but you can copy and paste from
here...
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/2947-distinction-between-fact-truth.html

And if youre interested it was the lack of spelling/grammer mistakes in this post that gave it away as written by someone else.

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

Wow drunken monkey that is so insightful.....:D
Its such a pity you dont have the actual intelligence to come up with or understand something like this yourself but you can copy and paste from
here...
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/2947-distinction-between-fact-truth.html

And if youre interested it was the lack of spelling/grammer mistakes in this post that gave it away as written by someone else.

It makes a better point than you would anyday Mr Fergisman (if that is your real name). The best you can come up with is your 100% allegiance to the yes side's agruments , which you falsely advertise as perfect in everyway... You cant just drop the treaty and use the brain you were born with... all you are capable of is using the brain that the instituations have given you... no better than cheap shot bully boy's Michael O'Leary and Pat Cox... why can't you egg on Declan Ganley?

If you were so commited to live for tomorrow and not today, you would be able to effectively discount everything I say, without resorting to your big bible of economics, or you pethetic attacks on my sources... but of course as wise man once say "the Lisbon treaty is the only source of information". Its really sad to see smart men like you fall for the crap you have been fed all your life... if only you could see my way of thinking, without branding my ideologies as something like on Youtube, you would meet your sprititual side and find less time for greed and competitiveness

P.S. Why not update the NAMA thread, is your head sore from the hole you have buried it in? Or are you still just plain ignorant and serious when it comes to economics?

meglome

Everyone just look at who is supporting a No vote and what they are saying, that will make it very clear to you that voting Yes is the only sensible way to go. I can't wait for this referendum to be over so the crazies can crawl back under their rocks.

Edit: just saw this post over in the conspiracy theory's forum. No to Nuts, Yes to Lisbon

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If the European constitution was passed what would be your top greatest concerns if the authorities were to draft in new civil measures into the country?.

Apart from breeding baby eating Dingos in Latvia and micro chipping the elderly mine would be just some of the following. :eek:

One child per family law in an attempt to cut down on population growth.

Compulsory drafting into the military on the reaching of 18 years of age for two years.This would be particularly hard on small families in the case of casualty.

Mandatory vaccination for infectious diseases. No explanation needed.

Multi usage programmable ID cards to be carried at all times failure to do so would result in a compulsory fine and arrest.

Compulsory use of ID Smart or administration codes to access the Internet. This would creep in as an "anti terror VOIP tracking", "child porn" "cyber crime Trojan. The sheeple would buy it because they would believe that it would make the internet and society "safer" :rolleyes:

Restrictions on freedom of speech, banning of blog or web sites that deem damaging to the interests of the Union. This would be drafted in to help prevent "terrorist organizations" from setting up and "corrupting" the public. :rolleyes:

Smart card only access for all public transport that would double up as an ID card. This would be introduced for pensioners, welfare and those on disability allowing free transport access but electronically restricting them during peak hours. This will give those on state benefits a good incentive to use them rather than use the normal transit cards. Eventually all Euro ID cards could be programmed to operate on transit touch pads

Smart card requirement for the purchase of all alcohol, tobacco or any materials that deem a threat. Beer, fags knives, hand tools etc will have RFID track & trace devices built into them in case they end up in the wrong hands.

Electronic rationing utilizing the EAN bar code / ETag along with your personal smart card. This will also keep track of your global warming tax credits on all consumer purchases.

Random curfews in time of civil strife or demonstration. Military police could be deployed on the streets of Dublin within hours by drafted them in from abroad. The port tunnel would give them prompt access into the city center.

Electronically locking individuals out of the public transport system. This would not be a bad idea for preventing convicted vandals from traveling on rail or bus services. However if the authorities had suspicion of any subversives they could also lock them out. They could also introduce laws that children under a certain age must be "touched" in with an adult or registered guardians.

Registration of all mobile handsets making it illegal to own or operate an unregistered pay as you go phone. Already enforced in France, this could be very easily drafted in here making service providers having a cut off point for those that fail to register IMEI and sim cards.

Compulsory fitting of electronic GPS tracking device to all vehicles for monitoring a "carbon tax" based on useage and distance covered. It would be far more accurate than the current ANPR system used in London and could also be compatible with toll roads, bridges etc.

There is no EU constitution so the rest has to be rubbish by default.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

Now I'm no expert on fishing but I can use simple logic.

The Irish landed catch since 1973 is 2.4 billion and the landed catch by foreign boats is 4.7 billion.

The Spanish landed catch since 1973 is 2 billion euro and the catch landed by foreign boats is 2 billion euro.

I really wanted to see how far this would go without the acknowledgment from the figures people on this topic that their own figures are skewed somewhat & the bullishness really is clouding your better judgement.
You could have worked out where the 200 billion figure comes from had you not been wrapping your self up in the euro flag unwilling to accept anything but what is being portrayed to you.

If irelands quota imposed by the EU for fishing from our own waters is 4% & we have fished 8 billion to date since accesion then 4% of 200 billion is............? 8 billion. Meaning we are fishing within our quota.

Now if we are far in excess of our quotas why are we not being scolded by the EU for this & sanctions etc being imposed on us?
Surley we wouldnt still be entitled to all the FREE billions we have been getting if we were permanently in breach of regulations.
To use your figures above it would mean that we are actually landing almost 50% of the fish caught in our waters & not being repremanded for it.

Just listen to what you are saying is happening, we are exceeding by far a quota imposed by the EU & all the while they are saying nothing & giving us billions for free without so much as a complaint from any other EU neighbour about the disproportionality being afforded to Ireland.

Tell me this, what other EU country is also receiving BILLIONS of € for free & with them being larger than ireland it must be substantially more than we are receiving & then tell me where all this funding is coming from?

If you take of your euro hat for a moment & actually look at it objectivley you will see how nonsensicle it is. Dont be afraid to think freely away from the main frame & come up with your own vision on it rather than what is being speeled out to coerce the general public. Good luck.

drunken_munky52

meglome wrote: »

There is no EU constitution so the rest has to be rubbish by default.

Lisbon is the EU consitution... specifically redrafted 10% to avoid a referendum in France and Holland

Why are the other European governments not allowing their own citizens to decide on the matter?

Answer: Becuase Nicolas Sarkozy said himself that they would just reject it anyway... now there is democracy for you... if you are seriously saying that the majority of people in Europe are conspiracy theorists and liars then there is something definitely wrong with you...

Stuacach

Clareman wrote: »

I could have quite the rant if we were to get talking about Mr. Dooley, so I'll avoid that topic I think

Anyway, back to the Ops question, Clare has always being the leader for change in Ireland (the whole banner county people ) so I wouldn't expect us to vote no for many things, if anything we seem to vote Yes for controversal topics a bit easier, bring back Banji

The reason the EU continues to progress from its original purpose as a tradnig agreement to a political entity is so that the larger powers can give away more and more of that power and influence to the smaller member states.

If you believe that (!) vote yes.

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Edit: just saw this post over in the conspiracy theory's forum. No to Nuts, Yes to Lisbon
.

Much of that content you saw in the CT forum has already been discussed or even proposed by the EU. Censorshop for one, and the Death penalty of which I forgot to mention. :eek:

EU and RFID vehicle tracking facts.

EU promoting RFID implants in livestock, literally the mark of the beast. :eek:

Towards an RFID policy for Europe. Official EU site :eek:

Not alone is "Carbon Tax" being discussed on a Euro wide scale, Euro Elites are also trying to play God and "save the human race". from pollution, God knows what else they could come up with :eek:

They also may even try to save us from infectious diseases.

meglome wrote: »

There is no EU constitution so the rest has to be rubbish by default.

You say tomato I say tomato

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

I really wanted to see how far this would go without the acknowledgment from the figures people on this topic that their own figures are skewed somewhat & the bullishness really is clouding your better judgement.
You could have worked out where the 200 billion figure comes from had you not been wrapping your self up in the euro flag unwilling to accept anything but what is being portrayed to you.

Try this http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html#ixzz0S6f3iD5v

THE country’s largest fishermen’s organisation is calling for a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum and says claims that the country has been robbed of its fish by other EU countries are wrong.

Instead, in a reversal of the commonly held view, Sean O’Donoghue of the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation said the Lisbon Treaty would be in the best interests of the Irish industry.

...

An independent study carried out by the Canadian University of British Columbia in Vancouver as part of the Sea Around Us project puts the total value of fish taken from Irish waters from 1974 to 2004 at €8.5bn. During this time, Irish ships took €3.9bn from the Irish waters and €3.16bn from British waters that Irish boats have access to because they are part of the EU.

Mr O’Donoghue said that as a result of EU membership the Irish industry got aid that between 2000 and 2013 amounts to some €100 million. "The national government would not have been able to provide the aid to the same extent if we were not part of the EU," he added.

The Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation has also called for a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum while South and West Fish Producers’ Organisation based in Castletownbere has decided to remain neutral on the issue.

Hmm I thought the EU had robbed us and all the fishing organisations were against it. Seems you and Rtdh were wrong (again)

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

Try this http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html#ixzz0S6f3iD5v

Hmm I thought the EU had robbed us and all the fishing organisations were against it. Seems you and Rtdh were wrong.

Already read that Good man yourself......when did i ever mention at all that all or any fishing organisations were against the treaty????

Not once have i spoken on behalf of anyone from the fishing organisations but instead i referenced you to 1 Irish times article.

I have actually, if you read back through our posts said that it is fair enough to share the wealth from our seas and to use an old saying now "there is plenty of fish in the sea".

I have consistently told you that we have more than paid our way in the EU & the notion of BILLIONS FOR FREE is absurd to any logical thinking person, that has been the point of the last few days on this.

All the big business men are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of a YES with Sean O'Donohue included.....this treaty will be good for businesses bottom line profits at the expense of the people who work for them.

Explain now if you will my previous post that spells out the bleeding obvious around where the 200 billion is calculated from using your own data of 8 billion to start from.

Listen to some words of wisdom now:

YOU DONT GET BILLIONS OF EUROS FOR FREE OFF ANYONE!

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

And i just remebered you are not a straight talker when it comes to debating such issues.....you have no credibility to be commenting.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

Listen to some words of wisdom now:

YOU DONT GET BILLIONS OF EUROS FOR FREE OFF ANYONE!

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

So all you need to do is show where the EU has taken something in return for this? We can see from my post that is isn't fish. Just this once prove something.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

So all you need to do is show where the EU has taken something in return for this? We can see from my post that is isn't fish. Just this once prove something.

Now you are really showing your hypocrisy:

Your attempt to shoot down what i have put to you as a baseless argument because i referenced at one point a comment in a news paper from someone in the fishing industry you wrote off as not having any concrete source to offer you to support the argument.

Now a few pages later in the same fashion you are referncing a different newspaper article & are prepared to announce that this ia a definitive close to the issue as it has been said by Sean O'Donohue therefore it must be so.

You are a hypocrite & your credibility as a straight talker is gone.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

Now you are really showing your hypocrisy:

Your attempt to shoot down what i have put to you as a baseless argument because i referenced at one point a comment in a news paper from someone in the fishing industry you wrote off as not having any concrete source to offer you to support the argument.

Now a few pages later in the same fashion you are referncing a different newspaper article & are prepared to announce that this ia a definitive close to the issue as it has been said by Sean O'Donohue therefore it must be so.

You are a hypocrite & your credibility as a straight talker is gone.

So that's a no you won't prove it then.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

So that's a no you won't prove it then.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62253494&postcount=262