Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Is Declan Ganley involved?

I think so yes. Maybe not on the same scale as before. But they have big placards and I have a picture of one, but I've been asked to wait till the launch so I will. Shock and awe and all.

BlitzKrieg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think so yes. Maybe not on the same scale as before. But they have big placards and I have a picture of one, but I've been asked to wait till the launch so I will. Shock and awe and all.

your f*cking pulling our legs aint ya?

seriously?

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

your f*cking pulling our legs aint ya?

seriously?

No. I've posted the story on irishelection.com. There's an interview in the WSJ on it.

BlitzKrieg

Ok very important question

have they got rid of caroline Simons?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404643114251588.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

And I see the interview and Mr Ganley is already back to his old lying self

The most striking is Article 48, universally known by its French nickname, the passerelle clause. It says that "with just intergovernmental agreement, with no need of going back to the citizens anywhere, they can make any change to this constitutional document, adding any new powers, without having to revisit an electorate anywhere,"

Stark

Blitzkrieg wrote:

Ok very important question

have they got rid of caroline Simons?

I thought she was returned to clay after they disbanded first time round.

FutureTaoiseach

I don't know the answer to the CS question.

BlitzKrieg

I dont know if its a good thing or bad thing if she returns.

She did wonders in destroying the libertas reputation at the european elections.

But by the end of it she was going a tad crazy and really I dont think this referendum needs anymore crazy.

K-9

Anybody have any garlic?

This could go against the No side. Libertas is associated with Ganley and people remember the recount.

K-9

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

But by the end of it she was going a tad crazy and really I dont think this referendum needs anymore crazy.

Definitely not the No side. It is the biggest Plus for the Yes side. The more like CS, COIR and Erin whatever you call them, are let on air, the worse for the No side.

Maybe the BCI decision was a blessing in disguise for the No side? Imagine this lot getting more exposure!

I don't think there is any need for Libertas this time, from a No perspective.

FutureTaoiseach

100,000 votes (5.4%) in the Euro elections, while running in just 3 constituencies (where they averaged 7%) is not bad for a new party in their first election by Irish political-standards. It was almost double what the PDs won in their successful campaign in 2002. He got 14% (67,000 votes) in NW. I would argue that he has a niche (especially former PD votes in Galway) and could build on a successful no campaign if he put in the effort in Ireland and dropped the earlier plans for a Europe-wide party.

nesf

Guys, Declan Ganley is worthy of a thread of his own. Could we move the discussion of him elsewhere please?

This thread is supposed to be about people's intention to vote after all!

Keewee6

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Get reading. Don't bother posting until you have finished. I might have some questions for you when you have done your homework.

[I note FT saw fit to thank this post. What is one to make of that?]

done - omg its the same treaty - dont bother with the questions - its ok

wintear

I am voting No because when I said no the first time I meant it. It was the same when I voted on Nice, I don't need to be asked the same thing twice.

The EU is good as it is and will suffer if it gets any bigger. Ireland will become a lost voice against the larger louder countries with greater voting powers.

No should mean No.

PopeBuckfastXVI

wintear wrote: »

I am voting No because when I said no the first time I meant it. It was the same when I voted on Nice, I don't need to be asked the same thing twice.

The EU is good as it is and will suffer if it gets any bigger. Ireland will become a lost voice against the larger louder countries with greater voting powers.

No should mean No.

I'm glad the rest of Europe didn't share your selfish attitude before we joined...

Keewee6

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm glad the rest of Europe didn't share your selfish attitude before we joined...

the words "pot" - "kettle" - "black" spring to mind - didn' t get yr way last time aye - :rolleyes::rolleyes:

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

done - omg its the same treaty - dont bother with the questions - its ok

Keewee6 wrote: »

ok ill do that -then vote no

Keewee6 wrote: »

would u rather i read it and then voted no

Keewee6 wrote: »

the words "pot" - "kettle" - "black" spring to mind - didn' t get yr way last time aye - :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Do you have any opinions longer than one line of text talk to contribute to any thread?

Keewee6

marco_polo wrote: »

Do you have any opinions longer than one line of text talk to contribute to any thread?

theres nothin wrong with these opinions - in my opinion:D

Elba101

wintear wrote: »

The EU is good as it is and will suffer if it gets any bigger. Ireland will become a lost voice against the larger louder countries with greater voting powers.

No should mean No.

Just to let you know, you’re not voting on whether Europe should get bigger (regardless of a yes/no outcome other countries will become members). you're voting on whether you want Europe to reform the way it works in order to facilitate Europe becoming bigger, which is going to happen. So you are in fact against Europe strengthening itself and bringing all its member countries closer together?


If your going to vote no, it's best to figure out a real reason why.

FutureTaoiseach

Elba101 wrote: »

Just to let you know, you’re not voting on whether Europe should get bigger (regardless of a yes/no outcome other countries will become members). you're voting on whether you want Europe to reform the way it works in order to facilitate Europe becoming bigger, which is going to happen. So you are in fact against Europe strengthening itself and bringing all its member countries closer together?


If your going to vote no, it's best to figure out a real reason why.

Angela Merkel and Sarkozy have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Well then that's another reason to vote no as far as I am concerned. The race to the bottom has gone far enough. I oppose Turkish membership of the EU and the latest Eurobarometer polls that asked that question (before it was conveniently removed from the poll) show Irish people opposed to Turkish EU membership. They are trying to do too much too quickly.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Angela Merkel and Sarkozy have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Well then that's another reason to vote no as far as I am concerned. The race to the bottom has gone far enough. I oppose Turkish membership of the EU and the latest Eurobarometer polls that asked that question (before it was conveniently removed from the poll) show Irish people opposed to Turkish EU membership. They are trying to do too much too quickly.

Again I'm glad nobody in the EU had your selfish attitude when we applied to join.

Is Iceland included in your 'race to the bottom'?

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Again I'm glad nobody in the EU had your selfish attitude when we applied to join.

Is Iceland included in your 'race to the bottom'?

No. But can I point out that we already had a right to travel to and live in the UK before we joined the EU? It's not really comparable. In that context, I don't credit the EU with the fact that so many were allowed emigrate to the UK.

I have no problem with Iceland because it isn't a large, poor country. However, the latest polls suggest the Icelandic people have other ideas with the no side there now having a 14% lead. Gives new meaning to the cry of the yes side about the difference between Ireland and Iceland being 'one letter and six months'. Maybe that was originally true in terms of the outcome of our respective referenda.

Stark

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Angela Merkel and Sarkozy have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Well then that's another reason to vote no as far as I am concerned. The race to the bottom has gone far enough. I oppose Turkish membership of the EU and the latest Eurobarometer polls that asked that question (before it was conveniently removed from the poll) show Irish people opposed to Turkish EU membership. They are trying to do too much too quickly.

The very thing you linked to contradicts what you've said:

Enlargement would require some Treaty amendments, but not of the kind that would require a lengthy ratification process, or Irish referendum).

FutureTaoiseach

Stark wrote: »

The very thing you linked to contradicts what you've said:

No. You are selectively quoting an article that contains two points of view. Merkel and Sarkozy did say that Enlargement cannot proceed without Lisbon:

The idea that the EU could happily continue on the basis of the Nice Treaty received yesterday a death blow by both Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy. Frankfurter Allgemeine has a long interview with Merkel in which she flatly said the Nice Treaty allowed no further enlargement

After that, the website argued that in fact, it can proceed without Lisbon:

The statement is only true in a technical sense. Enlargement would require some Treaty amendments, but not of the kind that would require a lengthy ratification process, or Irish referendum

I think the first part deals with the political-reality i.e. that each member state can block Enlargement, while the secon part deals with the technicalities of whether it would be possible to Enlarge without it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. But can I point out that we already had a right to travel to and live in the UK before we joined the EU? It's not really comparable. In that context, I don't credit the EU with the fact that so many were allowed emigrate to the UK.

I have no problem with Iceland because it isn't a large, poor country. However, the latest polls suggest the Icelandic people have other ideas with the no side there now having a 14% lead. Gives new meaning to the cry of the yes side about the difference between Ireland and Iceland being 'one letter and six months'. Maybe that was originally true in terms of the outcome of our respective referenda.

But you'd still block their, and Croatia's, entry on the chance that Turkey might get in.

Again, it's lucky there was no-one in power who wanted to block poor countries entry when we joined.

You appear to be the sort of person who would kick someone out lifeboat so you'd have room to put your feet up, selfish hypocrisy is not a nice trait.

I'm fully aware you'd prefer to go back to a pre-enlargement EU aswell, happily restricting the right to free movement of our eastern European partners, seeing as they're not the right sort of Europeans for you.

It seems, in your view, all Europeans are equal, but some are more equal than others.

It's remarkably easy to understand your opposition to Lisbon, as well as your support for Libertas, given your world view.

FutureTaoiseach

I think I should have clarified my position. There is a legal reality and a political reality. Iceland and Croatia may reject EU membership anyway with the latter's no camp having over 40% against EU membership in polls. I am okay with eventual Icelandic membership but the latest polls indicate they will be ones refusing not us. The political reality, according to Merkel and Sarkozy, is that Enlargement will not proceed without Lisbon. But of course, Merkel and Sarkozy will eventually depart the political-scene, after which other leaders may decide differently. In that context, you shouldn't interpret what I'm saying as a no forever to Icelandic membership of the EU. But if temporarily preventing another country joining the EU is the price to pay for preventing another large influx of cheap labour then I consider that an acceptable one to pay, not least because Icelanders don't seem to want to join anyway according to the latest poll (48-34 against).

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think I should have clarified my position. There is a legal reality and a political reality. Iceland and Croatia may reject EU membership anyway with the latter's no camp having over 40% against EU membership in polls. I am okay with eventual Icelandic membership but the latest polls indicate they will be ones refusing not us. The political reality, according to Merkel and Sarkozy, is that Enlargement will not proceed without Lisbon. But of course, Merkel and Sarkozy will eventually depart the political-scene, after which other leaders may decide differently. In that context, you shouldn't interpret what I'm saying as a no forever to Icelandic membership of the EU. But if temporarily preventing another country joining the EU is the price to pay for preventing another large influx of cheap labour then I consider that an acceptable one to pay, not least because Icelanders don't seem to want to join anyway according to the latest poll (48-34 against).

Your position is quite clear to me.

FutureTaoiseach

Some economic arguments that suggest claims by the yes camp that we need Lisbon to protect FDI into Ireland are untrue. In fact, the American pharmaceutical industry increased industrial production here by 68.3% in the year up to July 2009. Our recession is construction-led - not led by some exodus of FDI. This strengthens my determination to vote no.

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year up to July 2009 – rising to a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here. This evidence suggests strongly that the no vote has not impacted negatively on investor sentiment of Ireland. Intel and Ryanair have their own reasons for supporting Lisbon, relating to Intel’s appeal against the €1.06 billion fine, and Ryanair’s desire to takeover Aer Lingus which the Commission previously blocked. What is dragging the economy down has nothing do with Lisbon, but may partly be laid at the door of the ECB’s monetary policy, which has imposed Franco-German interests on an economy at the perhipery of Europe, which had an overheating economy until 2008. A property-bubble and crash became inevitable as a consequence. If anything, events underline the dangers of too much centralisation of economic sovereignty in supranational institutions, which tend to be dominated by the Big States

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Some economic arguments that suggest claims by the yes camp that we need Lisbon to protect FDI into Ireland are untrue. In fact, the American pharmaceutical industry increased industrial production here by 68.3% in the year up to July 2009. Our recession is construction-led - not led by some exodus of FDI. This strengthens my determination to vote no.

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year up to July 2009 – rising to a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here. This evidence suggests strongly that the no vote has not impacted negatively on investor sentiment of Ireland. Intel and Ryanair have their own reasons for supporting Lisbon, relating to Intel’s appeal against the €1.06 billion fine, and Ryanair’s desire to takeover Aer Lingus which the Commission previously blocked. What is dragging the economy down has nothing do with Lisbon, but may partly be laid at the door of the ECB’s monetary policy, which has imposed Franco-German interests on an economy at the perhipery of Europe, which had an overheating economy until 2008. A property-bubble and crash became inevitable as a consequence. If anything, events underline the dangers of too much centralisation of economic sovereignty in supranational institutions, which tend to be dominated by the Big States

The effects of the first No were mitigated by the fact that we are having a second referendum and the expectation / hope in the MNC sector is that we’ll pass it the second time.
The main effects of No in terms of creating jobs or impacting investor sentiment will not be felt for at 4 to 5 years as that’s the typical lead time for the creation of an FDI job however the investment can be cancelled at any time in that period
You cannot say if the first No impacted negatively on investment, what would the figure have been if we had voted yes? Have any investments been pulled or put on hold as a result of the No vote?
A final No is likely to have a much more serious effect.
It’s not just Intel that is advocating a Yes; you mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, well Pfizer are supporting a Yes and as far as I know all the multinationals are supporting a Yes, I know of none that supports a No.
The main reason Intel Ireland is supporting a Yes is that it’s in the best interests of the company and its employees (see their press releases). There may be some patronage towards the EU in respect of the fine however that’s just speculation and doesn’t take away from their main reason for supporting a Yes.

Btw, I have worked in multinationals and indigenous companies in the ICT sector and I have been involved in getting inward investment.

.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Some economic arguments that suggest claims by the yes camp that we need Lisbon to protect FDI into Ireland are untrue. In fact, the American pharmaceutical industry increased industrial production here by 68.3% in the year up to July 2009. Our recession is construction-led - not led by some exodus of FDI. This strengthens my determination to vote no.

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year up to July 2009 – rising to a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here. This evidence suggests strongly that the no vote has not impacted negatively on investor sentiment of Ireland. Intel and Ryanair have their own reasons for supporting Lisbon, relating to Intel’s appeal against the €1.06 billion fine, and Ryanair’s desire to takeover Aer Lingus which the Commission previously blocked. What is dragging the economy down has nothing do with Lisbon, but may partly be laid at the door of the ECB’s monetary policy, which has imposed Franco-German interests on an economy at the perhipery of Europe, which had an overheating economy until 2008. A property-bubble and crash became inevitable as a consequence. If anything, events underline the dangers of too much centralisation of economic sovereignty in supranational institutions, which tend to be dominated by the Big States

That shows me we wasted the last 5 years being property obsessed at the cost of developing indigineous exports.

9wetfckx43j5rg

NO.

We must speak for Europe. We are the only ones with a voice.

Why say no: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4Mwjgdgoo

We are now given "legal assurances" that our tax rate will not be changed, Irish neutrality will not be affected and Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion. These were adapted to convince us to vote Yes. The EU commision president Barrasso has already threatened that Ireland will "pay the price" if we vote No. These new adpations are just to sugercoat the treaty. What about the rest of Europe? They weren't offered anything like this, none of their worries about the treaty were heard because they didn't get a choice. Vote NO for us, Vote No for them too.

The Volt

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

NO.

We must speak for Europe. We are the only ones with a voice.

Why say no: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4Mwjgdgoo

We are now given "legal assurances" that our tax rate will not be changed, Irish neutrality will not be affected and Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion. These were adapted to convince us to vote Yes. The EU commision president Barrasso has already threatened that Ireland will "pay the price" if we vote No. These new adpations are just to sugercoat the treaty. What about the rest of Europe? They weren't offered anything like this, none of their worries about the treaty were heard because they didn't get a choice. Vote NO for us, Vote No for them too.

They democratically elected people who made a decision on their behalf. It's all in string with their respective consititutions.

K-9

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

The EU commision president Barrasso has already threatened that Ireland will "pay the price" if we vote No.

Any links on that, as this very forum has a topic with him saying we will not be discriminated against for voting No.

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote: »

The effects of the first No were mitigated by the fact that we are having a second referendum and the expectation / hope in the MNC sector is that we’ll pass it the second time.
The main effects of No in terms of creating jobs or impacting investor sentiment will not be felt for at 4 to 5 years as that’s the typical lead time for the creation of an FDI job however the investment can be cancelled at any time in that period
You cannot say if the first No impacted negatively on investment, what would the figure have been if we had voted yes? Have any investments been pulled or put on hold as a result of the No vote?
A final No is likely to have a much more serious effect.
It’s not just Intel that is advocating a Yes; you mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, well Pfizer are supporting a Yes and as far as I know all the multinationals are supporting a Yes, I know of none that supports a No.
The main reason Intel Ireland is supporting a Yes is that it’s in the best interests of the company and its employees (see their press releases). There may be some patronage towards the EU in respect of the fine however that’s just speculation and doesn’t take away from their main reason for supporting a Yes.

Btw, I have worked in multinationals and indigenous companies in the ICT sector and I have been involved in getting inward investment.

.

Martin 2 there is no evidence that France and Holland were damaged by their no votes. At the time of our Lisbon referendum last year it had been 3 yrs since their EU Constitution referenda, and Dutch unemployment was the lowest in the EU at 2%. I say we call the politicians bluff and vote no. If we vote yes, then the elites that ignored the French and Dutch no votes and are trying to push through 95% of its provisions against the wishes of those nations (though not their governments) will have been rewarded. More than this issue is at stake. If they get away with not respecting referendum results, in future they will try it with election results. It's a slippery slope.

Frida Vast Turkey View Post wrote:

We are now given "legal assurances" that our tax rate will not be changed, Irish neutrality will not be affected and Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion. These were adapted to convince us to vote Yes. The EU commision president Barrasso has already threatened that Ireland will "pay the price" if we vote No. These new adpations are just to sugercoat the treaty. What about the rest of Europe? They weren't offered anything like this, none of their worries about the treaty were heard because they didn't get a choice. Vote NO for us, Vote No for them too.

Jeanniebabz, here is my main problem with the guarantees. We are told by Dick Roche (who promised there wouldn't be a second referendum - a quote still on his website!) that they will become an "international agreement" because they will be deposited with the EU, and that as such they will stand up in the ECJ. Just one problem.

On September 3rd 2008, the ECJ annulled EU regulations implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1267, which was tasked with freezing the assets of the Al Barakaat International Foundation (which was linked to Al Qaida). The relevance to our Lisbon debate is where the ECJ says:

ECJ wrote:

an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system...the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty, which include the principle that all Community acts must respect fundamental rights.

This effectively means that EU Treaties overrule international agreements. This is especially of concern because here, the ECJ was ruling in relation to a UNSC resolution. UNSC resolutions are supposed to be the highest instruments on international law. If that's the respect the ECJ shows to a UNSC resolution, then imagine what they will think of an 'international agreement' that has not been through a single legislature or UN body like the Security Council.

Dinner

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If we vote yes, then the elites that ignored the French and Dutch no votes and are trying to push through 95% of its provisions against the wishes of those nations (though not their governments) will have been rewarded.

You seem to have some sort of problem understand that the 5% that was removed were the parts that they had issues with. Is it that difficult?

FutureTaoiseach

Dinner wrote: »

You seem to have some sort of problem understand that the 5% that was removed were the parts that they had issues with. Is it that difficult?

If that is true, then let the Dutch and French governments prove it with referenda. They won't. Why? Sarkozy has told us:

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:

A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.

63% are against Lisbon in the Dutch polls.

Dinner

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If that is true, then let the Dutch and French governments prove it with referenda.

In the case of Holland there's the law, remember?

In the case of France, the French people knew they weren't going to get a referendum when they went to vote. And since then, has their been a large amount of protests?

FutureTaoiseach

Dinner wrote: »

In the case of Holland there's the law, remember?

In the case of France, the French people knew they weren't going to get a referendum when they went to vote. And since then, has their been a large amount of protests?

I think you mean Germany. There is no law banning a referendum on Lisbon. They decided the constitution didn't require one. The Dutch PM publicly threatened to order Queen Beatrix to veto a referendum if the parliament went over his head again and tried to force one. With respect to France, I wonder how they would have felt in the Presidential election had Sarkozy told them that the "mini-treaty" he was promising would be 95% the same in terms of provisions as the rejected EU Constitution. It's a curious "mini-treaty" that is 10,000 words longer than the EU Constitution, but each to their own. It wasn't the Lisbon Treaty at that stage.

9wetfckx43j5rg

Voltwad wrote: »

They democratically elected people who made a decision on their behalf. It's all in string with their respective consititutions.

They were promised referendums which weren't delivered.

Here is proof of europeans demanding a referendum for the EU constitution (Now known as the LISBON Treaty.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOcG2G_6uC0&feature=PlayList&p=CF0E12FAFC37908E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16

9wetfckx43j5rg

K-9 wrote: »

Any links on that, as this very forum has a topic with him saying we will not be discriminated against for voting No.

Here you go: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/vote-yes-or-well-all-pay--price-eu-chief-warns-1388158.html

9wetfckx43j5rg

You also check how the large amount of videos that were posting either thanking ireland for voting no the first time, or asking them to vote no the second time all from other europeans.

FutureTaoiseach

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

Here you go:

Hold on a minute.

That was 2008. A few days ago he said the opposite. Namely, that Ireland would not be punished for voting no a second time:

Commission President Barroso wrote:

There will be no discrimination against Irish people if there is a No vote. You will not hear from me any threat to Ireland.”

I actually think that the second time around, EU figures saying they will not punish Ireland for a second no vote are more helpful to the no campaign, whereas last year, the opposite was the case.

K-9

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

Here you go: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/vote-yes-or-well-all-pay--price-eu-chief-warns-1388158.html

He didn't say Ireland would pay exclusively, he said the EU would, which obviously includes Ireland.

He is the EU Commission President and has a right to give his opinion on what will affect the EU, far more right than UKIP.

For once I am in agreement with FutureTaoiseach, though I'd say he is being a little selective! LOL

9wetfckx43j5rg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Hold on a minute.

That was 2008. A few days ago he said the opposite. Namely, that Ireland would not be punished for voting no a second time:I actually think that the second time around, EU figures saying they will not punish Ireland for a second no vote are more helpful to the no campaign, whereas last year, the opposite was the case.

Ah so basically the first time the only country with a refundum voted, he threatened them if they voted no.

When threats didn't work, he made assurances and mollycodled and reassured the country that everything would be fine if we said no.

Ever heard of the Good Cop, bad cop routine?

K-9

He is perfectly entitled to act in the EU's interest, in fact it is his remit.

Yes campaigners pointed this out in the last Referendum but sure very few cared.

What you are doing is confusing his opinion as interference.

9wetfckx43j5rg

K-9 wrote: »

He didn't say Ireland would pay exclusively, he said the EU would, which obviously includes Ireland.

He is the EU Commission President and has a right to give his opinion on what will affect the EU, far more right than UKIP.

I still don't trust him. Politicians should be smart enough, Eu head or not, to realise that saying "The Eu (And Ireland) Will Pay" if we vote no makes him sound like the Godfather.

FutureTaoiseach

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

Ah so basically the first time the only country with a refundum voted, he threatened them if they voted no.

When threats didn't work, he made assurances and mollycodled and reassured the country that everything would be fine if we said no.

Ever heard of the Good Cop, bad cop routine?

Suppose.

K-9

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

Ah so basically the first time the only country with a refundum voted, he threatened them if they voted no.

When threats didn't work, he made assurances and mollycodled and reassured the country that everything would be fine if we said no.

Ever heard of the Good Cop, bad cop routine?

In your opinion he threatened us.

Basically, the Commisioners act in the EU's interests, not individual countries.

So, in a way, he is acting correctly, though it may appear he isn't, if you hold a certain mindset, like yours.

K-9

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

I still don't trust him. Politicians should be smart enough, Eu head or not, to realise that saying "The Eu (And Ireland) Will Pay" if we vote no makes him sound like the Godfather.

He is no longer a politician, same as McCreevy.

He is head of the EU Commission so he is concerned with the EU as a whole, not Ireland.

PS. YouTube will be frowned upon as sources on this forum, for good reasons.

9wetfckx43j5rg

K-9 wrote: »

He is no longer a politician, same as McCreevy.

He is head of the EU Commission so he is concerned with the EU as a whole, not Ireland.

PS. YouTube will be frowned upon as sources on this forum, for good reasons.

Don't worry I'm not actually using youtube as basis for my opinion but I am using all available means of researching and developing a opinion for this.

And Youtube actually is a good method to see individuals reactions to this, considering we are now voting for all of Europe not just us. And you can also find videos, such as the one I posted on real reactions in Strasburg, that Rte isn't exactly going to air.

K-9

Frida Vast Turkey wrote: »

Don't worry I'm not actually using youtube as basis for my opinion but I am using all available means of researching and developing a opinion for this.

And Youtube actually is a good method to see individuals reactions to this, considering we are now voting for all of Europe not just us. And you can also find videos, such as the one I posted on real reactions in Strasburg, that Rte isn't exactly going to air.

Would make a good separate thread.

I wish people would spend half as much time on politics as YouTube! LOL