I am prepared to go back to the Irish people

[Zapatista]

Ganley will be once again made out to be the main player in the No campaign as he is the easiest target for this character assination.

Now now Zaptista, you know as well as I do that Ganley portrayed himself as the main player in the no campaign, he wasnt put in that position by the yes campaign.

He was the one putting himself forward for the prime time debates and interviews and so on.

None of the no campaign made any noise about him being seen as the no campaigns front man at the time of the first campaign.
Its only now that he has been exposed as being involved in some very suspect business deals that the no campaign are trying to deflect the spotlight off him.

It's amazing how many people are trying to distance Ganley from the no campaign now who were happy to let him do the talking last time around.
Ironic in a way, as he played on the lack of trust the people had in the government last time. Now he is getting a taste of his own medicine.

You are making that up. He did of course put himself forward as did all the elected reps on the No side. There was no coalition on the No side they all fought their own battles. SF, Libertas, PBF, Coir and independents were all separate for the entire campaign. IT was the Government and main opposition that united.  Every No campaigner wanted their own to be the leading person of the No side. I have said I am no fan of Ganley many times.

Your point is thin and biased anyway. Isn't it just as amazing that FG can let the Government lead the Yes campaign while calling for the Greens to pull out of Government and for Mary Harney to be sacked? The truth is that there is nothing amazing about it. It is to be expected when ultimately they want the same result. The same applies to the No sdie.

[his holiness nb]

Zaptista I am not making anthing up 
For the big interviews and the crucially important prime time debate it was Ganley representing the no side. Like it or not, he was perceived as the main man in the no debate, and I didnt hear anyone on the no side complain.
Of course he didnt do it himself, and there were many others involved and giving interviews. But I think most people would agree that if you had to name one man as the most prominent no campaigner last time, most would say Ganley.

Call that biased all you like, but while you are throwing that label around you can hardly deny being biased towards the no campaign yourself, so lets cut of the petty crap.

[Zapatista]

Zaptista I am not making anthing up 
For the big interviews and the crucially important prime time debate it was Ganley representing the no side. Like it or not, he was perceived as the main man in the no debate, and I didnt hear anyone on the no side complain.
Of course he didnt do it himself, and there were many others involved and giving interviews. But I think most people would agree that if you had to name one man as the most prominent no campaigner last time, most would say Ganley.

Call that biased all you like, but while you are throwing that label around you can hardly deny being biased towards the no campaign yourself, so lets cut of the petty crap.

Cutting the petty crap is what I'm trying to do.

I would say Mary Lou McDonald, Joe Higgans and Patricia McKenna were pissed off that Ganley became a front runner. RTE, TV3, Newstalk etc choose who they put on their shows. You saying that the No side are trying to distance themselves from Ganley and didn't complain about him leading the No Campaign which isn't true. They all had their own agenda and all wanted the treaty stopped. Ganley had no previous connection with them before the treaty and any connection that came ended with the end of the treaty. You trying to connect Joe Higgans with Ganley's business in the US is a disingenuous along the same lines of me connecting Enda Kenny to Bertie Aherns in Manchester. Petty stuff really.


Edited to remove to word 'lie'. Sorry HH I don't want to be calling you a liar it is harsh and will ruin the debate.

[Farrandeelin]

I voted No before and will vote No again. Simply because I'm sick of all those EU men telling us what to do. How many EU directives have we had to obey. True the EU has been good to Ireland but I'm not in favour of the way it's heading, towards Imperialism by stealth if you ask me.

[his holiness nb]

You trying to connect Joe Higgans with Ganley's business in the US is a disingenuous along the same lines of me connecting Enda Kenny to Bertie Aherns in Manchester. Petty stuff really.

Oh ffs Zaptista, to suggest that saying nobody on the no side complained about Ganley leading the debates is somehow connection Joe Higgins with Ganleys business interests in the US is the biggest twisting of facts I've seen in quite a while.

If thats the sort of crap I'm up against I'm happy to pull out of this particular debate.

[Zapatista]

Mr Ganleys determination to stop this second refererdum speaks volumes given his shady past.

You wrote this HHnb. First you let everyone know Ganley is shadey.

You later wrote

It's amazing how many people are trying to distance Ganley from the no campaign now who were happy to let him do the talking last time around.

I disagree completely with this. The No campaign was a sum of parts. It was not that they all got together to choose Ganley as leader. You make it sound like they did and that is wrong. It is misinformation. Ganley was merely the most high profile and you now try to tarnish everyone with the questions being asked of Ganley. It is mud slinging HH and and a low form of debate, nothing less. 

[stephenite]

I voted No before and will vote No again. Simply because I'm sick of all those EU men telling us what to do. How many EU directives have we had to obey. True the EU has been good to Ireland but I'm not in favour of the way it's heading, towards Imperialism by stealth if you ask me.

There's something in that - I think in 100 years time the world won't be too far off some model of 3 or 4 large trading blocks with a central authourity, we already have APEC, the EU etc. I certainly don't think that Ireland would be better off out of such an arrangement as isolationism in a modern world just means it will be a failed state.

From reading through other sites a lot of these I also feel a lot of people (but by no means all) are just sick of EU men/Government telling us what to do as opposed to a real assesment of what the treaty can do, but that's down to an abject failure on the part of the governement first time around to actually try and sell the thing. Either way, another No vote is very likely but I wouldn't agree it.

[Tankie]

It is mud slinging HH and and a low form of debate, nothing less. 

Classis Zap after the No side openly lied and played on peoples fears. Or the other classic where 'wats the point in have a veto if you vote use it so vote No'... you really do make me laugh

[Zapatista]

It is mud slinging HH and and a low form of debate, nothing less. 

Classis Zap after the No side openly lied and played on peoples fears. Or the other classic where 'wats the point in have a veto if you vote use it so vote No'... you really do make me laugh

The hypocrisy is evident in this post. Playing on fears?

It is not true because you say it is Tankie. Constantly claiming lies were told and using the red Herring that is abortion to justify those claims is mass deception. Can you give me examples of these lies and I will make my own opinion on them. Most of them can be countered or at least put into perspective, many are actually the truth.

Examples of some lies - The No side are anti- EU
                              -  We are a small percentage holding up the wishes of the rest of Europe
                              - Poinsas deRossa was beating up by No activists
                              - Zapatista was evicted from from a public meeting in Blanchardstown Library
                              - It is a treaty and not a constitution
                              - If you vote No you are aligned with Nazis in Germany
                              - We are respecting the decision of the Irish people

[Tankie]

It is mud slinging HH and and a low form of debate, nothing less. 

Classis Zap after the No side openly lied and played on peoples fears. Or the other classic where 'wats the point in have a veto if you vote use it so vote No'... you really do make me laugh

The hypocrisy is evident in this post. Playing on fears?

It is not true because you say it is Tankie. Constantly claiming lies were told and using the red Herring that is abortion to justify those claims is mass deception. Can you give me examples of these lies and I will make my own opinion on them. Most of them can be countered or at least put into perspective, many are actually the truth.

Examples of some lies - The No side are anti- EU
                              -  We are a small percentage holding up the wishes of the rest of Europe
                              - Poinsas deRossa was beating up by No activists
                              - Zapatista was evicted from from a public meeting in Blanchardstown Library
                              - It is a treaty and not a constitution
                              - If you vote No you are aligned with Nazis in Germany
                              - We are respecting the decision of the Irish people

Zap as i said there is no debate with you or the No side on this as you pick and choose what you want to discuss. A perfect debate to watch was the Prime and Q&A debates on RTE when every time the No side were confronted with their lies they would come out with your crap of 'Whats the point in having a Veto if you aint gonna use it', or would just not accept facts.

The No side played up Neutrality, Tax and Abortion in all their posters when none of these were even an issue in the TREATY!

[Donagh]

[Zapatista]

Instead of calling me a liar and using that as an excuse to not ask questions, why don't you try and ask me a few questions and I will answer them as honestly as I can. If I don't know have an answer I will try to get one by listening to both sides and choosing one.

The No side played up Neutrality, Tax and Abortion in all their posters when none of these were even an issue in the TREATY!

How are we expected to pay for more militarisation (which imho effects neutrality) without Tax?

[Treasurer]

Here's hoping the debate will be less muddy this time round.  IMHO the "Yes" side slipped up badly in pretty much assuming it was a done deal until it was too late.  If Michéal Martin, Alan Dukes and others had spoken as passionately about it during the campaign as they did after the result, it might have been different.  Or it might not, but at least it might have cleared up some of the more devious arguments against - the fears of conscription, abortion, etc.  As things stand it's very hard to know what size of the vote was swayed either way by mis-information, deliberate or otherwise.  Hopefully more people will put aside party allegiences and vote yes/no for genuine reasons - not just because they do/don't want to support a particular party. 

[his holiness nb]

Mr Ganleys determination to stop this second refererdum speaks volumes given his shady past.

You wrote this HHnb. First you let everyone know Ganley is shadey.

You later wrote

It's amazing how many people are trying to distance Ganley from the no campaign now who were happy to let him do the talking last time around.

I disagree completely with this. The No campaign was a sum of parts. It was not that they all got together to choose Ganley as leader. You make it sound like they did and that is wrong. It is misinformation. Ganley was merely the most high profile and you now try to tarnish everyone with the questions being asked of Ganley. It is mud slinging HH and and a low form of debate, nothing less. 

Zaptista, with respect, that bit I highlighted is 100% wrong. I never once suggested anybody selected Ganley as the leader. I merely said nobody seemed to have a problem with him assuming this role for himself. If somebody did complain about this,then show me some quotes, otherwise stop repeating that what I say is wrong with nothing to back up your arguments.

Also, to say I am trying to tarnish everyone on the no campaign with the questions asked of Ganley is also wrong, in fact I suggest its a deliberate lie. I have said Ganley is a shady character, I stand by that. I never once said ANYONE on the no campaign were in anyway involved in his business interests.

All I said was they were happy to let him speak for their campaign. Unless you can disprove this, stop saying its wrong.

[carribbear]

How are we expected to pay for more militarisation (which imho effects neutrality) without Tax?

The Irish army are alledgedly already spending 1 Billion a year so I can't say we're neutral anymore after our little efforts in Chad upholding the UN (or should that be USA/EU) agenda

Take the blinkers off, Europe wants to harmonise everything, process people the same way, get all taxes at the same rate and simplify their job. Processing plant.