Official Thumped position on Lisbon (1 Viewer)

[broken arm]

what drives me nuts about debates is thinking of a better answer and the person debating not/. probably its the same as who wants to be a millionaire or something, but every time leery was calling gammy a failed politician, all he had to say was 'are the guys who beat me successful or something??'

all in all there was a torrent of cheap shots throughout though. the little fuck up with repeated scene and awkward silence was good.

the thing is.. everyone knew what to expect from O'Leary - he's a twat and he'll act out of ego and self interest. He was bound to resort to the failed politician / dana cheap shots.

Ganley came across as arrogant and aloof - talking about the "spirit of europe" and goading o'leary on that he didn't understand the treaty. That's no way to connect with the audience in my opinion. Very few people fully understand the thing so by insulting o'leary he's insulting everyone.

na mean?

 

[Unicron]

The keeping the commissioner thing pisses me off as it's a total red herring. It's not a commissioner's job to fight a country's corner, it's to handle a particular portfolio. I doubt that McCreevy as Internal Market and Services commissioner or whatever his title is has any say over commission agriculture or fisheries or whatever policy.

 

[broken arm]

The keeping the commissioner thing pisses me off as it's a total red herring. It's not a commissioner's job to fight a country's corner, it's to handle a particular portfolio. I doubt that McCreevy as Internal Market and Services commissioner or whatever his title is has any say over commission agriculture or fisheries or whatever policy.

it is a prestige issue for member states.

one of the problem, as far as I understand it, is because Lisbon allows for new members to join we'll have to create new portfolio for a new commissioner to deal with.

sounds pretty stupid to me.

 

[ann post]

the thing is.. everyone knew what to expect from O'Leary - he's a twat and he'll act out of ego and self interest. He was bound to resort to the failed politician / dana cheap shots.

Ganley came across as arrogant and aloof - talking about the "spirit of europe" and goading o'leary on that he didn't understand the treaty. That's no way to connect with the audience in my opinion. Very few people fully understand the thing so by insulting o'leary he's insulting everyone.

na mean?

yeah, he hasnt been honing his political skills this year anyways. i was also wiki-ing the back story to gimblet, his main income is from war, so its a bit mystifying why he'd be anti treaty (that is if the treaty actually effects neutrality in ireland anyway). i've come to believe that he is a lobby group as such based his contracts with the usa for fixing their war phones, that would be enough money for me to go out and look like prick, just so everyone would vote against me. its an easier campaign in a lot of ways.

 

[Diddles]

Thumped = Yes to Lisbon

Morto.

 

[Milker]

yeah, he hasnt been honing his political skills this year anyways. i was also wiki-ing the back story to gimblet, his main income is from war, so its a bit mystifying why he'd be anti treaty (that is if the treaty actually effects neutrality in ireland anyway). i've come to believe that he is a lobby group as such based his contracts with the usa for fixing their war phones, that would be enough money for me to go out and look like prick, just so everyone would vote against me. its an easier campaign in a lot of ways.

not a fan of Ganleyous Declacanus by a mile but nearly everyones motives for speaking publicly on lisbon is suspect.

 

[Milker]

Thumped = Yes to Lisbon

Morto.

Ryanair discounts all round...yaaaayyyy!!!

 

[pete]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLMfcoSCY08"]YouTube - elvis no 2 lisbon[/ame]

 

[hugh]

yeah, he hasnt been honing his political skills this year anyways. i was also wiki-ing the back story to gimblet, his main income is from war, so its a bit mystifying why he'd be anti treaty (that is if the treaty actually effects neutrality in ireland anyway)

I don't see it as mystifying at all. He associates himself with all sorts of shady right-wing politicians and groups across Europe and with US neocons, both of which groups are fundamentally anti-EU, and have an interest in disrupting its workings. He is a right-wing neoconservative. Maybe if the Treaty actually was the war-mongering pro-privatisation big-business armanents industry plot that it's opponents claim it is, then he would be for it.

I don't like Michael O'Leary at all and he really wasn't much use last night but there was plenty of entertainment to be had watching him have a go at that gimp.

 

[Froog]

not sure if he makes "most of his money from war", his telecommunications company sell stuff to the US army sure, but also to emergency services police and paramedics, its not like he's an arms dealer or something. thats just one of his many business ventures. not that i think he's not a complete cunt mind.

the debate was poor stuff but funny enough. ganley came across like a bit of a cunt, his arguments were lame, at one point did he say voting no was better for jobs? the "soul of europe" stuff was annoying too. o leary started off okayish but as expected resorted to petty personal jibes at ganley, dont think anyone's under any illusion about his motives. miriam was a bit odd too i thought, calling o leary a bully and going on about their big egos, true, but a bit unprofessional i thought.

 

[broken arm]

I was reading that position paper Ganley wrote for the US Foreign Policy Research Institute in 2003.

I thought it was interesting that he was suggesting an Federal Europe was a good idea, that the "constitution" doesn't allow for it. This is an interesting point insofar as he says the Treaty isn't that much different from the constitution.

A federal Europe is a pretty good idea, if it possessed an accountable administration with a clear European identity and position on the world stage; had vested in it only those key disciplines that are best and most efficiently managed on a European level; embraced Europe’s diversity; and devolved as many matters as possible to Europe’s regions. But the Constitution for the Future of Europe does not provide for such a Europe.

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

 

[frambosenshmak]

sigh............


its taken me a while to get my head around all the circus going on for the lisbon sequel and frankly i'm worn out from it all.

i'm currently very dissillusioned with EU politics and for someone who is so enthralled by the heady and fiery debates that a good political sore point brings on i'm finding myself considering the previously unthinkable and abstaining from the vote for the first time since i had the right to cast mine.

I find it hard getting pigeonholed into a corner with the loonies when i voted no over legitimate concerns to what i believed to be a flawed treaty. My concerns grew when i saw how quickly the EU tacked on whatever deal sweeteners they thought would placate the most sensitive audience to right wing nut job parties while assessing that was all that was required to get the majority pass for Lisbon II. Its very similar to FF's tactic of putting the country against the cities - dont put any focus on swinging the liberal voter. And thats what i feel has happened. My concerns weren't addressed they were ignored, and instead if i find myself being told 'you got what you wanted' when i raise the no issue with people.

I didnt want an anti-abortion safeguard or a religious safeguard. I find this exposes us to ridicule as a very backward thinking nation whereas Ireland has been quite liberal at times compared to its more stringent ruled EU member states.

I didnt want a neutrality safeguard. We lost that as soon as we signed up to the EU rapid reaction force and put our soldiers on frontline duty in the lebanon, bosnia and darfur. We're safeguarded against any threat merely due to our geographical location between two of the biggest shit stirrers in military history - The US and the UK.

I wanted a clear appraisal done of the treaty and proper legal measures implemented to stop loopholes being exploited to the detriment of healthcare (privatisation), competition (the eventual allignement of our taxes with that of other EU countries, thus reducing our highly competitive corporate tax level) and increased military focus/spending.

I do want to see all the changes to do with equality, poverty and environment implemented but not at the expense of political control being wrested from the public by a lot of politicians whom generally just arent trusted to do the job they've been asked to.

We cant as members of the public be expected to vote on increasingly complex political issues as Lisbon shows, each time the EU grows the charters become exponentially larger to deal with the administration. However we should expect our elected officials to represent us properly, have at minimum an 80% attendance and actively seek to represent their actions on our behalf BEFORE the time comes for them to vote and not after the deed is done and so rendering our complaints useless. We shouldnt have to depend solely on the press for leaks in advance of issues that will have an effect on society.

I look at this treaty as something akin to the first US charter of unification. Each state had its own interests at heart and was sceptical at joining a union to fight the British, those who joined early, like all early adopters had to put up with some painful changes, however in the end not all states were rewarded equally for their membership. And thats where we stand in the EU as far as i'm concerned. We're a small state with very little bargaining tools (irish 'charm' is well past its sell by date in eu politics) and a such we should expect very little influence on how the EU is run.

We signed up to the deal hook line and sinker, we lost our currency but benefitted from financial aid, we lost our neutrality but benefitted from increased trade and employment from fellow eu members. Its give and take but unless i can be really convinced otherwise i dont think i'll give my vote this time round as i believe the EU has taken too many liberties with this treaty and not taken enough time to shape it into a properly structured document.

There are alternatives and a two tiered approach which i have favoured of moving forward with those critical elements - environment, equality, poverty - that will face little or no objection and working longerterm on the more contentious administration and financial elements of the treaty as a seperate entity would be ideal in my mind.

The treaty is flawed. The EU is increasingly built on more and more flawed doctrine and this political need for short term glory/solutions will be its undoing. We are leaving a terrible mess for future generations to sort out just so the Sarkozys of this world can get their power fix.

saying No wont drastically change the EU but i believe it will give cause to re evaluate the treaty and what way we want Europe to progress at the short term expense of retaining costly flawed administration and denting Irelands position in the EU.

saying Yes wont drastically change the EU but i believe it will bring to light any legal flaws in the treaty and it will also highlight the increasing disparity between the politicians and the public they supposedly represent and Irelands position in the EU will still be damaged owing to our first 'delay' implementing this treaty.

Either way its a lose lose situation for Ireland. We take it on the chin and move on. And if i hear one f*cker down the line freaking out about not having our say in future contentious EU policy, well... you had your chance so shut up and drink your 500ml guinness

 

[Jelly_Block]

They should have got Paxman in for this. He would have roasted them silly

 

[broken arm]

sigh............

jesus paul. cheer the feck up will ya,.






great post though.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

Anyone wanna swap a no for a yes and we both stay at home?

 

[frambosenshmak]

jesus paul. cheer the feck up will ya,.






great post though.

ha
sorry... yeah.... woooooo! .|..| europe.
nope. not this week, i cannae do it cap'n. too tired. !zed
my attempt to watch o'leary and ganley out sleaze each other last night i think has given me a does of politicilles heel (or is that fibbers elbow?)

 

[ratmonkey]

Anyone wanna swap a no for a yes and we both stay at home?

I'm not sure you can trust people to do that. Might be better to go for pints so you can supervise your opposite not voting.

 

[broken arm]

ha
sorry... yeah.... woooooo! .|..| europe.
nope. not this week, i cannae do it cap'n. too tired. !zed
my attempt to watch o'leary and ganley out sleaze each other last night i think has given me a does of politicilles heel (or is that fibbers elbow?)

two twats in a twangle

 

[ann post]

ABSTAINING IS RETARDED

i dont know if i told this story on thumped before, but the last general election here, my mate was in the pub all day. a certain politically motivated aquantance of thiers called round the pub briefly at one point. about 9pm he copped that he should go and vote, while he was queing, there was a lad two ahead in the que claiming to be him, obviously a plant. so my mate, half pissed goes 'what the fuck' (he really doesnt have a popular, easily mistakable name), the plant guy legs it out of the voting centre and my mate is too drunk to persue. moral of the story:

dont abstain, go in and spoil. at least you know then that your vote cant be re-routed.

 

[platters]

Empirical?

I am a spa, I think I meant imperial, but I'm not sure. Ignore me.