LISBON - What way will Clare vote this time?

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

Run_to_da_hills

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 organizations were against it. Seems you and Rtdh were wrong (again)

That means absolutely nothing, Its more like that top brass in that organization have been bullied into submission by scare mongering EU politicians. The average fisherman with his trawler lying up on dry dock pi**ed off because his livelihood has been robbed by the EU is hardly going to buy this one.

akkadian

buck65 wrote: »

I think Clare will vote yes again. Not sure about the country as a whole, many might again use this to give a slap our incompetent, corrupt government.

That's why most people need to think again. The way to vote on Lisbon is to size it up as a treaty, reading as much factual impartial information on it as possible.
If people are unhappy with the government, they should think strongly about rejecting the NAMA propaganda. I was for NAMA but I'm not sure now. Honestly guys, Ireland is bankrupt. California is bankrupt,. Michigan is bankrupt. Many other states are bankrupt. Incidentally, what's happening in the states is a mirror of what's happening here. The federal governnent is bailing out (and hence taking control) of states like California. Whoever gets to bail out has the power as they control the interest rates. Ireland is under that same kind of influence of power now.
You see these 'idiots' on TV always knocking Iceland. 'Oh, they wish they were part of the EU now' and maybe there's some truth to that,
but NAMA may be a stone throw too far for me. I think I'd rather we took our chances with FG's good bank system. It's NOT perfect I know but with tweaking it could serve it's purpose:

1. Let Anglo Irish and other corrupt pawn companies dissolve.
(NAMA supports these

2. LET the economy contract a bit more. It's a fake bubble anyway. It's a hard hit, but unfortunately it's reality.

It's a fake economy. In fact it makes the good companies look bad. There are now 140 or so medical device companies in Ireland exporting 10% total exports and a big chunk of the balance of trade surplus. Ireland has had a balance of trade surplus for the last 20 years, but these days (in the last 10 years) how much of it is really Irish?

Foreign owned companies provide jobs yes, but those jobs can evaporate overnight as you saw. Also, a lot of these companies are mediocre construction companies implanted by the likes of Anglo-Irish to fuel a fake bubble to make Ireland dependant on foreign investment.
And that's really my point. Ireland is now dependent on this
foreign investment, IMO, by design.

I say cut the big impaired toxic loans completely loose, keep the economy on life support until the budget slashes and keep putting money into subsidies for privately owned start-ups based in Ireland.
Not public companies like AIB. These companies can be invested by anyone and are really just corporate monarchies. That's what they are. That's what publically owned companies - LLC's (PLC's) - effectivlely are. They're mini mobile monarchies. A ceo steps into his harness at the top, does whatever the greedy shareholders want him to do for profits and then, on instruction, does whatever someone else tells him to do, gives himself a bonis and then offers free-for-all loans that are unrealistically repayable. The ceo of of these types of companies have NO responsibility (pretty much) Limited Liability Company.
The first LLC was set up in Germany in 1892. How reassuring is that, and now we have them in Ireland. CRH are at least responsible but the banks ... do you really want to support the continuation of these now corrupt ridden institutions? Anyone can pump money into these.

That's how sensitive they are. One more big H1N1 outbreak, or any kind of global hit at all, and bang - these ''assets'' rapidly become a big noose around everyone's neck. We need to take our bitter medicine. The Irish Economy in spite of still having a balance of trade surplus, is too fragile as long as we carry these banks along. Theres too much speculation in the market place and these times are far far too uncertain to take the risk. I say let the economy contract more this year, cut them loose if necessary, and work with what we do have. We as usual export more than we import. We now have good infrastructure. Literacy and education are amongst the highest in the world. Ireland has the highest level of economic freedom in the world, and after a few city states in Asia, and Australia, it's the fourth most economically free in the world. It's a small open economy that inherantly attracts investment. I don't support ignoring this in favour of supporting NAMA - which means in all honesty it means supporting another bubble waiting to be burst. I see it like this:

1. FG Good Bank
2. Labour Nationalisation
3. FF NAMA - the only show in town!!! ...only it's not a show for the extraordinary working people of Ireland.

If you are angry with the government then please, please don't be coerced into using the Lisbon treaty as a valve to let off steam. Vote for or against the treaty on it's own merits. Do your research. Answer the question actually being asked.

IMO, we need to demand a general election. Many of you are probably suffering from red mist. You've poured all your betting chips into FF, and now you can't back down. you have to believe that NAMA is the only solution, but it's not. The same people that walk around saying the same thing over and over and over again - 'the other parties would be no better...' are the same people that just can't imagine something better. You want to live in your imaginary world with a false bubble NAMA that's just going to (in the best case scenario) fuel a new property bubble ripe for the re-bursting. Please don't reward the likes of Anglo-Irish for their treachery.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

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

So if I get this right your opinion is now proof?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That means absolutely nothing, Its more like that top brass in that organization have been bullied into submission by scare mongering EU politicians. The average fisherman with his trawler lying up on dry dock pi**ed off because his livelihood has been robbed by the EU is hardly going to buy this one.

he he he ah come on. You been shown using carefully calculated figures and statements from the Fishing organisations themselves to be completely wrong. Yes it's all a conspiracy against you.


In all seriousness lads you both are entitled to any opinion you like, but why come in here and peddle your nonsense. Is wrecking the EU so important to you?

meglome

akkadian wrote: »

That's why most people need to think again. The way to vote on Lisbon is to size it up as a treaty, reading as much factual impartial information on it as possible.
If people are unhappy with the government, they should think strongly about rejecting the NAMA propaganda. I was for NAMA but I'm not sure now. Honestly guys, Ireland is bankrupt. California is bankrupt,. Michigan is bankrupt. Many other states are bankrupt. Incidentally, what's happening in the states is a mirror of what's happening here. The federal governnent is bailing out (and hence taking control) of states like California. Whoever gets to bail out has the power as they control the interest rates. Ireland is under that same kind of influence of power now.
You see these 'idiots' on TV always knocking Iceland. 'Oh, they wish they were part of the EU now' and maybe there's some truth to that,
but NAMA may be a stone throw too far for me. I think I'd rather we took our chances with FG's good bank system. It's NOT perfect I know but with tweaking it could serve it's purpose:

1. Let Anglo Irish and other corrupt pawn companies dissolve.
(NAMA supports these

2. LET the economy contract a bit more. It's a fake bubble anyway. It's a hard hit, but unfortunately it's reality.

It's a fake economy. In fact it makes the good companies look bad. There are now 140 or so medical device companies in Ireland exporting 10% total exports and a big chunk of the balance of trade surplus. Ireland has had a balance of trade surplus for the last 20 years, but these days (in the last 10 years) how much of it is really Irish?

Foreign owned companies provide jobs yes, but those jobs can evaporate overnight as you saw. Also, a lot of these companies are mediocre construction companies implanted by the likes of Anglo-Irish to fuel a fake bubble to make Ireland dependant on foreign investment.
And that's really my point. Ireland is now dependent on this
foreign investment, IMO, by design.

I say cut the big impaired toxic loans completely loose, keep the economy on life support until the budget slashes and keep putting money into subsidies for privately owned start-ups based in Ireland.
Not public companies like AIB. These companies can be invested by anyone and are really just corporate monarchies. That's what they are. That's what publically owned companies - LLC's (PLC's) - effectivlely are. They're mini mobile monarchies. A ceo steps into his harness at the top, does whatever the greedy shareholders want him to do for profits and then, on instruction, does whatever someone else tells him to do, gives himself a bonis and then offers free-for-all loans that are unrealistically repayable. The ceo of of these types of companies have NO responsibility (pretty much) Limited Liability Company.
The first LLC was set up in Germany in 1892. How reassuring is that, and now we have them in Ireland. CRH are at least responsible but the banks ... do you really want to support the continuation of these now corrupt ridden institutions? Anyone can pump money into these.

That's how sensitive they are. One more big H1N1 outbreak, or any kind of global hit at all, and bang - these ''assets'' rapidly become a big noose around everyone's neck. We need to take our bitter medicine. The Irish Economy in spite of still having a balance of trade surplus, is too fragile as long as we carry these banks along. Theres too much speculation in the market place and these times are far far too uncertain to take the risk. I say let the economy contract more this year, cut them loose if necessary, and work with what we do have. We as usual export more than we import. We now have good infrastructure. Literacy and education are amongst the highest in the world. Ireland has the highest level of economic freedom in the world, and after a few city states in Asia, and Australia, it's the fourth most economically free in the world. It's a small open economy that inherantly attracts investment. I don't support ignoring this in favour of supporting NAMA - which means in all honesty it means supporting another bubble waiting to be burst. I see it like this:

1. FG Good Bank
2. Labour Nationalisation
3. FF NAMA - the only show in town!!! ...only it's not a show for the extraordinary working people of Ireland.

If you are angry with the government then please, please don't be coerced into using the Lisbon treaty as a valve to let off steam. Vote for or against the treaty on it's own merits. Do your research. Answer the question actually being asked.

IMO, we need to demand a general election. Many of you are probably suffering from red mist. You've poured all your betting chips into FF, and now you can't back down. you have to believe that NAMA is the only solution, but it's not. The same people that walk around saying the same thing over and over and over again - 'the other parties would be no better...' are the same people that just can't imagine something better. You want to live in your imaginary world with a false bubble NAMA that's just going to (in the best case scenario) fuel a new property bubble ripe for the re-bursting. Please don't reward the likes of Anglo-Irish for their treachery.

Do you mind me asking what all the rant about NAMA has to do with a thread about an EU treaty? Our own government put us in the position we are in, a government we voted for.

Although in fairness I do agree with you that we should vote for or against the treaty on it's own merits.

akkadian

meglome wrote: »

Do you mind me asking what all the rant about NAMA has to do with a thread about an EU treaty? Our own government put us in the position we are in, a government we voted for.

Although in fairness I do agree with you that we should vote for or against the treaty on it's own merits.

It doesn't have anything to do with it. I demonstrated that no matter how much economics and NAMA tie in with the treaty, I will vote for or against the treaty on it's own merits. Nothing more, nothing less, and I hope others do the same

meglome

akkadian wrote: »

It doesn't have anything to do with it. I demonstrated that no matter how much economics and NAMA tie in with the treaty, I will vote for or against the treaty on it's own merits. Nothing more, nothing less, and I hope others do the same

Okay... but NAMA has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. NAMA is going to go ahead whether we vote Yes or no to Lisbon.

akkadian

meglome wrote: »

Okay... but NAMA has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. NAMA is going to go ahead whether we vote Yes or no to Lisbon.

We won't know that until post-lisbon. If Lisbon is rejected FF would probably be ousted following a general election (I would hope) and then ...no more NAMA!

meglome

akkadian wrote: »

We won't know that until post-lisbon. If Lisbon is rejected FF would probably be ousted following a general election (I would hope) and then ...no more NAMA!

As much as I like the idea unfortunately it's not based in any reality. No government has ever quit from a referendum loss. Only the Greens can get rid of Fianna Fail and they won't do anything until their own poll ratings improve. It looks like we'll be waiting for the next general election, which is obviously the sensible time to vote against the government.

If you don't like what the government is doing it really makes no sense to vote against the EU.

akkadian

meglome wrote: »

As much as I like the idea unfortunately it's not based in any reality. No government has ever quit from a referendum loss. Only the Greens can get rid of Fianna Fail and they won't do anything until their own poll ratings improve. It looks like we'll be waiting for the next general election, which is obviously the sensible time to vote against the government.

If you don't like what the government is doing it really makes no sense to vote against the EU.

I never said they would quit from any referendum loss. I think it's quite possible that a 'no' together with the budget cuts they have to implement could be enough for a vote of no confidence in the government and a resultant general election. Obviously there's a lot of ifs, least of which being that Irish people are prepared to remove the dildo that is the government, after they allowed and continued to promote the false economy that they're now trying to re-inflate for the second burst through NAMA

meglome

akkadian wrote: »

I never said they would quit from any referendum loss. I think it's quite possible that a 'no' together with the budget cuts they have to implement could be enough for a vote of no confidence in the government and a resultant general election. Obviously there's a lot of ifs, least of which being that Irish people are prepared to remove the dildo that is the government, after they allowed and continued to promote the false economy that they're now trying to re-inflate for the second burst through NAMA

The government have a majority, they would need the greens to vote against them. Given the poll rating for the greens they are not going to do that any time soon. And why would the government see an EU treaty as a vote against them? It's much more likely that the EU will see a No vote as a vote against them.

drunken_munky52

akkadian wrote: »

We won't know that until post-lisbon. If Lisbon is rejected FF would probably be ousted following a general election (I would hope) and then ...no more NAMA!

What would you hope in their place? And Im not talking politics here.

akkadian

FG would even be better but no matter what I say, it won't really matter very much will it? You'll just respond with 'they have no alternative' when they clearly do, or 'their alternative is not as good' .. in your opinion.
FG would be better for the real economy IMO, FF would be better for the fake economy, but that's the world we live in.

When FF canned the Eircom stadium project, people said they wouldn't vote them back in after that wastefulness but..they did

After the Ahern scandal, people said they would not vote for them again but ..they probably will.

After commiting to not vote for FF if Lisbon II is rejected.. they probably will.

After the mismanagement of the banking sector, people said they would not vote for them again.. but they probably would.

FF have done some very good things for this country and in some ways I'm proud of them but they have not done well enough.

I'd prefer give FG a shout if it was possible.

drunken_munky52

akkadian wrote: »

FG would even be better but no matter what I say, it won't really matter very much will it? You'll just respond with 'they have no alternative' when they clearly do, or 'their alternative is not as good' .. in your opinion.
FG would be better for the real economy IMO, FF would be better for the fake economy, but that's the world we live in.

When FF canned the Eircom stadium project, people said they wouldn't vote them back in after that wastefulness but..they did

After the Ahern scandal, people said they would not vote for them again but ..they probably will.

After commiting to not vote for FF if Lisbon II is rejected.. they probably will.

After the mismanagement of the banking sector, people said they would not vote for them again.. but they probably would.

FF have done some very good things for this country and in some ways I'm proud of them but they have not done well enough.

I'd prefer give FG a shout if it was possible.

You have gone off the rails completely on the topic... we aint discussing NAMA or our arsehole government... we are discussing the implications of voting yes or no for Lisbon.

If you want to discuss NAMA, then go to this thread that I also setup:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055670371

Seems like "Fergusman" did a runner on this one... too by the book he is.

akkadian

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You have gone off the rails completely on the topic... we aint discussing NAMA or our arsehole government... we are discussing the implications of voting yes or no for Lisbon.

If you want to discuss NAMA, then go to this thread that I also setup:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055670371

Seems like "Fergusman" did a runner on this one... too by the book he is.

As I said, if NAMA is rejected the implications are FF could be ousted. It is very real and possible that this could happen

drunken_munky52

akkadian wrote: »

As I said, if NAMA is rejected the implications are FF could be ousted. It is very real and possible that this could happen

Thank you Sherlock, now do you have anything to say about Lisbon without including the topic of sexy Enda Kenny as an alternative leader?

akkadian

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Thank you Sherlock, now do you have anything to say about Lisbon without including the topic of sexy Enda Kenny as an alternative leader?

What's the point? He's clearly too sexy for u!

allimac

The eu has forced aer rianta to close it's duty free operations in Shannon where the concept was invented in the name of fair trade while allowing the French and German motor industries to be propped up by billions by their govts.vote no to the superpowers.

drunken_munky52

allimac wrote: »

The eu has forced aer rianta to close it's duty free operations in Shannon where the concept was invented in the name of fair trade while allowing the French and German motor industries to be propped up by billions by their govts.vote no to the superpowers.

Yes, another example of how typically state run services are been siphoned off to private interests... whos main concerns and objectives is profit and more profit

Now the EU can bend the words are say they want to see us all live in a competitive economy, but this puts the persuit of profit before people always

Where does this stop? With the privitisation of our police force eventually... then the world will be run by private military companies (PMCs), when all the resources are used up... war will be the only means of business in the future

Stop this in its tracks and vote no

Turtwig

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yes, another example of how typically state run services are been siphoned off to private interests... whos main concerns and objectives is profit and more profit

Now the EU can bend the words are say they want to see us all live in a competitive economy, but this puts the persuit of profit before people always

Where does this stop? With the privitisation of our police force eventually... then the world will be run by private military companies (PMCs), when all the resources are used up... war will be the only means of business in the future

Stop this in its tracks and vote no

Actually, the other flip side of the coin

If we vote no, then it's highly plausible that not near enough action will ever be taken on Global Warming and we'll end up with a cataclysmic earth with frequent earthquakes,famine,storms,flooding etc etc so worrying about PMCs versus Fcked Earth ...i'd take the PMCs anyday..

Of course seen as your PMCs are actually wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more unlikely than my disaster scenario then on risk assessment what'd you do : Vote Yes!!!

drunken_munky52

Malty_T wrote: »

If we vote no, then it's highly plausible that not near enough action will ever be taken on Global Warming

Article 191 of the TFEU is amended to include for the first time in the Treaties a reference to the promotion of measures to combat climate change as part of the Union’s environmental competence. This reference was included at the request of the Irish Government. It will give the Union a specific basis for promoting international action against climate change.

Specifically the words promotion and promoting are used. This means sweet feck all... they are already "promoting" it, but the corrupt culture of big business still pollute the atmosphere and water... why... profit
Its like a child that does something bad... you tell that child that it is wrong... but he wont listen until you punish him... so promotion is worthless.

Were were the big balls to put hard hitting words instead of promotion into the treaty in regards this? Nowhere... becuase it would be a counter weight to their internal market and competition policies they have set out... they dont want to hurt big business's feelings by putting carbon reduction burdens on them

Face it... the EU aint worried about climate change... when the sea levels rise I am sure they have already figured out an oppurtunity for profit in that.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

So if I get this right your opinion is now proof?

Not written on a page of paper proof that you cling to so dearly as being gospel from a bunch of elite corrupt politicians??

Sorry thats a No then.......i can use my own intelligence to think for my self & not just what i am being told is so & to fall into line.

akkadian wrote: »

I'd prefer give FG a shout if it was possible.

And as for this comment :rolleyes:

As much as this absolutley kills me to say this & i already feel sick before i say it.........if it was FF or FG i would reluctantley have to go with FF even though i despise the lot of them.

This is coming to a close very soon & this is what i will say to the ordinary man & woman reading this.

This was voted on last year & returned NO.

The government put together a committee to find out why the people voted NO & came back with a list of reasons to be addressed.

The treaty has remained the exact same as last year & nothing has been changed so you are not voting on anything other than what you voted last year.

Seeing as this is the same treaty that was democratically retuned with a NO why is it nessessary to vote on the EXACT same thing again.

If the treaty was being put to me with the chages that the Irish people were looking for actually addressed & CHANGED it may have some (although very tiny) justification to be run again but absolutley none now seeing as it hasnt changed at all.

The NO returned last should be automatically put in place by default without the referendum being run as it has already been answered.

Listen to your own country men & politicians from all across the spectrum who have jumped ship to advocate this in a complete turnaround here....

http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/81015-does-sound-like-something-would-good-ireland.html#post1816000


And this is a sample of whats in the link above....

In a speech in Poland to Polish Ambassadors, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said "Without the Lisbon Treaty... we cannot speak about the future of Europe, about European defence, about the enlargement of Europe, about perfecting Europe. With 27 countries, it's not possible." He continues: "With this we will be the most politically significant entity in the world with a responsibility for our destiny, which goes well beyond our borders." He says, "There are no more issues anymore which can be decided in one country, they must all be considered in the Europe of 27." He said, "We must bear in mind, the necessity of supporting our diplomatic efforts with a common defence, a European defence, as we showed in Georgia and Kosovo. Without this European defence, our diplomacy lacks strength. One way of strengthening this, making it less fragmented - and which will be one of the tasks of your Presidency - is to build a European diplomacy, through the European external action service, provided for in the Lisbon Treaty. The external action will be a European diplomacy which will not only be a diplomacy of bureaucrats. It is absolutely necessary that our diplomacies meet each other, unite and take their rightful place in this external action service, alongside the Commission." He concludes saying, "In Europe, I have learned something - I should say that with President Sarkozy it is quite easy to see - you have to be determined, solid, a little bit demanding, so as not to get lost in the complexities of sometimes interminable meetings." - French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner 20th of July 2009

https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/bulletin.asp?liste=20090722.html&submit.x=9&submit.y=10

The YES men of today were telling & warning not to disrespect the Irish electorates desicion once the Vote has been cast.......how on earth can any of these people retain any credibility as politicians/business men that have our interests at heart when they are all proven now to be hypocrites.

Malcolm X;

"I have more respect for a man who says what he means & means what he says even if he is wrong, than one that tells me he is an angel but aint nothing but the devil"

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

Not written on a page of paper proof that you cling to so dearly as being gospel from a bunch of elite corrupt politicians??

Sorry thats a No then.......i can use my own intelligence to think for my self & not just what i am being told is so & to fall into line.

So if I can clarify you just think it's true and therefore it is?

You do see the difference between your opinion and provable fact right?

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

So if I can clarify you just think it's true and therefore it is?

You do see the difference between your opinion and provable fact right?

Typical from you......dont address anything else commented on in the Post.......you are not a worthy adversary.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

Typical from you......dont address anything else commented on in the Post.......you are not a worthy adversary.

How can I address your points, you just gave your opinion with no backup. Explain your views, show the parts of the treaty they are in and then I'll be able to do what you ask.

And your sig is a link to out-of context or misrepresented quotes that have been long since been debunked. However I'm sure that won't stop you.

BLITZ_Molloy

Friend of mine from Dublin did an anti-Lisbon rap. It's a bit paranoid to say the least but quite entertaining.

meglome

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

Friend of mine from Dublin did an anti-Lisbon rap. It's a bit paranoid to say the least but quite entertaining.

It's quite catchy to be honest, I enjoyed it. The only thing is someone should explain to him that a song which slags off our government (rightly so IMO) has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. The only point in the song that's actually about the Lisbon treaty is the chorus and all the says is Lisbon 2, **** you.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

How can I address your points, you just gave your opinion with no backup. Explain your views, show the parts of the treaty they are in and then I'll be able to do what you ask.

And your sig is a link to out-of context or misrepresented quotes that have been long since been debunked. However I'm sure that won't stop you.

Ah well i will refer you to this post i made over on another thread regarding continued participation on this forum from myself.......

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62322817&postcount=55

Stuacach

I expcet Clare to vote NO. Finanacial muscle unquestionably allows control of the flow of information and funds anonymous political lobbying, as we can fully appreciate in this country.
Corporate powers, rather than "ordinary" citizens, are therefore using their financial resources to back the "YES" campaign, because the more centralised the power becomes in Europe, the smaller the number of institutions it will be necesary to influence so as to shape the EU regulations and laws.
Voting "NO" will at least allow the other "ordinary" Europeans to have their say on the direction the EU is being pulled.

drunken_munky52

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is a pan-European think tank which conducts research and promotes informed debate across Europe on the development of coherent and effective European values-based foreign policy.

It was launched by fifty prominent Europeans in October 2007. ECFR's founding members include former European prime ministers, parliamentarians, business leaders, public intellectuals, and activists, all committed to increasing the EU's role on the world stage. The initiative is headed by Executive Director Mark Leonard, and has offices in five European capitals - Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, and Sofia.

The organisation is supported by billionaire and philanthropist George Soros, along with Sigrid Rausing, the Spanish foundation FRIDE, the Italian UniCredit Group, and the Bulgarian Communitas Foundation. ECFR is not associated with or linked to the American Council on Foreign Relations.

ECFR was named the world's "Best New Think Tank in the last five years" by Foreign Policy magazine in its January/February 2009 edition.

drunken_munky52

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is a pan-European think tank which conducts research and promotes informed debate across Europe on the development of coherent and effective European values-based foreign policy.

It was launched by fifty prominent Europeans in October 2007. ECFR's founding members include former European prime ministers, parliamentarians, business leaders, public intellectuals, and activists, all committed to increasing the EU's role on the world stage. The initiative is headed by Executive Director Mark Leonard, and has offices in five European capitals - Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, and Sofia.

The organisation is supported by billionaire and philanthropist George Soros, along with Sigrid Rausing, the Spanish foundation FRIDE, the Italian UniCredit Group, and the Bulgarian Communitas Foundation. ECFR is not associated with or linked to the American Council on Foreign Relations.

ECFR was named the world's "Best New Think Tank in the last five years" by Foreign Policy magazine in its January/February 2009 edition.

It is an official cover for the catering of politicians to meet with powerful business men - AKA Lobbying

The name "European Council on Foreign Relations" really means, a council which sway government policy.

This council is totally un-accountable, and the decisions that are made by political leaders in these meetings are spun for presenting to the public.