The Lisbon Treaty Referendum Oct 2nd

[magpie seanie]

What did ye think about O'Leary getting his ass handed to him by Ganley (and Miriam) last night? Terrible mess up by the Yes side to let O'Leary on against Ganley. I missed the earlier debate between Cox and Mary Lou but heard Cox had it in the bag but then went off on one about Rupert Murdoch.

[Zapatista]

What did ye think about O'Leary getting his ass handed to him by Ganley (and Miriam) last night? Terrible mess up by the Yes side to let O'Leary on against Ganley. I missed the earlier debate between Cox and Mary Lou but heard Cox had it in the bag but then went off on one about Rupert Murdoch.

I thought Martin V Higgans was even yet boring. Martin talked about himself and the EU and Higgans got into to much detail and told it to slowly. Martin might have edged it.

MLM V Cox was better. It depends what you like. Cox was patronising and talked about Rupert Murdoch and the IRA (some people love this stuff).  He oozed of that FF smugness. MLM was the up market shinner who didn't really get into a debate but made some points most of which we have heard before.

DG V MOL was a great laugh. Ganley roasted him in the debate but MOL got the laughs. MOL looked out of place and like he couldn't care less about Lisbon. He looked like he had been paid and was just completing his end of the bargin by keeping up appearances. He had about 3 prepared responses which he used for every question. The Commissioner, the fact that Ryanair creates jobs and that Ganley didn't get elected. Ganley came across as knowledgable and interesting.

MOL got told off by Miriam for being a bully he looked like a notty school kid.

[Billys Boots]

Not at all you just need to accept that your description of the treaty as an administrative change in which there are no benefits to you and me - other than it being better and more effectively undertaken on our behalf  is really just a load of bollocks.

I don't accept anything of the sort, and you haven't demonstrated it.  I've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't. 

I think Ganley is very interesting too - where did he make his money, for instance? 

[Zapatista]

I don't accept anything of the sort, and you haven't demonstrated it.  I've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't. 

I think Ganley is very interesting too - where did he make his money, for instance?

I'm not going to argue about it anymore as it is a ridiculous waste of time over nothing. I can't argue with someone in self enforced denial.

I have no support for Ganley or his business. I give my opinion of the debate. I'm no fan of Ganley but I do agree with his interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty. You are playing the man rather than the ball. It can be done on both sides. I can ask you where Pat Cox got his money, the same can be said about MOL or Bertie Ahern. The truth is that it doesn't change the treaty or the intention of the treaty. The money for Ganleys campaign comes from Ganley while there is money for the Yes campaign flooding in from many dodgy interest groups in the EU. This is a reality of modern politics and picking Ganley to question over this while ignoring 99% of the money being spent is disingenuous.

[magpie seanie]

The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.

[Billys Boots]

Ok, let's forget the personalities, and I'll ignore your insults to me.  I'll ask one last time.

I've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't.

Off ye go, tell me why you're absolutely certain that I'm wrong to support this treaty, without resorting to insults or repeating what 'personalities' have said.

[Tankie]

The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.

a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc  as it is bad for his business and not for ireland

[Zapatista]

Ok, let's forget the personalities, and I'll ignore your insults to me.  I'll ask one last time.

I've asked you several time to provide evidence of your contentions and you haven't.

Off ye go, tell me why you're absolutely certain that I'm wrong to support this treaty, without resorting to insults or repeating what 'personalities' have said.

Ye are moving the goal posts. That was the first time you asked me for evidence. I'm not going to provide you with evidence as no matter what I say you will still fall back on the same bull shit re administrative change. I can't be bothered. Readers and contributers can make their own mind up.

You can vote whatever way you like but please don't talk bollocks about how it is merely administrative changes that won't have any affect on you or me. This is an amended constitution for chisake!! The argument you are pedaling is beneath you and beneath a debate on this treaty.

[muppet]

The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.

a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc  as it is bad for his business and not for ireland

Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.

Simples.

[magpie seanie]

The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.

a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc  as it is bad for his business and not for ireland

Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.

Simples.

But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! 

[Hound]

The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.

a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc  as it is bad for his business and not for ireland

Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.

Simples.

But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! 

American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.

Hadn't heard The Muppet's insight that the American government is against it because they are scared of the EU's military power.

[muppet]

The reason why they're playing the man and not the ball in relation to Ganley is that he knows the Treaty inside out and is willing to tell it like it is. As he has the truth on his side and is a very accomplished speaker he is practically impossible to beat if people stick to the script. FF know that if they put Cowen or some of the front benchers on TV against Ganely it will guarantee the Treaty is defeated so the only option is to blacken him and say he has no mandate so that they can avoid it.

a man with links to the US military know it inside out and spins it his way...this may is anti lisbon as like all american companies and even the US government are very much against giving europe power as europe is very much about equality, competition and regulation...the last think someone like Ganley wants is more regulation, competition etc  as it is bad for his business and not for ireland

Right idea, wrong reason. The US are against it because they do not want a European military power.

Simples.

But I thought if we didn't vote for it no-one from the US would invest in our country and we'd all have no jobs and no future! Very confusing, isn't it! 

American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.

Hadn't heard The Muppet's insight that the American government is against it because they are scared of the EU's military power.

I meant the US military rather than the Government.

We have two businessmen in Ireland who have large contracts with the US military.

Declan Ganley and Ulick McEvaddy. Both have campaigned for a 'NO' vote.

[Zapatista]

Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.

American corporations located in Ireland are very much for it.

Google , Starbucks, McDonalds, blah blah. The truth is that a few Irish leaders of a few American companies support Lisbon, as does Ryanair. The rest haven't expressed an opinion. Dell hasn't give an opinion but that may have to do with moving to Poland with an EU grant. To say they "are very very much for it" is a scam as most haven't been asked and those that have are connected to Irish politics at a high level. Many of those that have been asked probably couldn't care less as they will go where the profit is regardless of Lisbon.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

The latest No poster in Dublin:

No to Ryanair Health Care

 

[muppet]

Mc Evaddy is now on the Yes campaign.

Really? Can't find anything online.