Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lisbon: Mícheál Martin destroys British eurosceptic on Pat Kenny

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    realismpol wrote: »
    Are we? I woudn't go far as to say dastardly. That would attribute some sort of intelligence. I mean our own taoiseach has admitted he didn't read the treaty in the first campaign despite urging a yes vote. woof woof!

    our ministers sit on the EU Council alongside other ministers of other countries

    there is no "unelected" elties

    im sick of all this conspiracy crap born out of ignorance of how the EU works

    @realismpol please name the 3 main bodies of EU and their jobs

    im not taking crap from anyone who is incapable and unwilling to learn how the EU works, and then goes around and tells people how to vote


  • Options
    #63
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    yep heard that interview/debate... Martin was impressive, put the saddle on the guy and rode him to death(metaphorically of course).

    Kenny wasn't exactly impartial on the time given to each guy.

    Martin just kept talking and wiped poor Nigel out.
    Yes unfortunately this is where Mairtin looks good. Arguing against people who clearly are just an embarrassment against the no campaign.This is a non issue really and again another attempt to sell treaty by tying one fringe element in with entire no campaign. Higgins as with Coir made the point of ignoring your friend "Nigel" for exact reason.


  • Options
    #64
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    nesf wrote: »
    That would be because the only mainstream political party calling for a No is Sinn Fein and they haven't been to the forefront of the No campaign for some reason. That leaves the less appealing groups as the only options to put in front of the camera. Though with Libertas back that'll change.

    Are you implying that Libertas is not a less appealing group? I'd be hard pressed to declare a preference between Declan Ganley and Richard Greene.


  • Options
    #65
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Yes unfortunately this is where Mairtin looks good. Arguing against people who clearly are just an embarrassment against the no campaign.This is a non issue really and again another attempt to sell treaty by tying one fringe element in with entire no campaign. Higgins as with Coir made the point of ignoring your friend "Nigel" for exact reason.

    who would you put forward as a "spokesperson for the NO side"


  • Options
    #66
    anonymous_joe
    Registered Users Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭anonymous_joe


    realismpol wrote: »
    Are we? I woudn't go far as to say dastardly. That would attribute some sort of intelligence. I mean our own taoiseach has admitted he didn't read the treaty in the first campaign despite urging a yes vote. woof woof!
    You've not answered anything I asked.

    In what way is the EU undemocratic? We elect officials to it after all.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    who would you put forward as a "spokesperson for the NO side"

    Someone who doesn't understand the treaty, but is against the EU because sure, Daniel O'Connell and the lads would have been against conscripting our aborted babies into a high corporate tax entity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    who would you put forward as a "spokesperson for the NO side"
    Higgins I think is someone most would agree with. Campaigned for rights of Turkish workers during the Gama dispute so he is someone who represents all workers and not just Irish workers.
    And by campaigning under his own umbrella, I think he is someone who sticks to his principles.
    I would also agree there are moderate voices on yes side too.


  • Options
    #68
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Higgins I think is someone most would agree with. Campaigned for rights of Turkish workers during the Gama dispute so he is someone who represents all workers and not just Irish workers.
    And by campaigning under his own umbrella, I think he is someone who sticks to his principles.
    I would also agree there are moderate voices on yes side too.

    it be interesting to see himself alright (at least hes from Ireland), tho questions would be asked about him rewording the treaty to suit his agenda


    and its ironic you bring up Turkish workers when FT gets all worked up in a parallel thread about Turkey joining the EU


  • Options
    #69
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    it be interesting to see himself alright (at least hes from Ireland), tho questions would be asked about him rewording the treaty to suit his agenda


    and its ironic you bring up Turkish workers when FT gets all worked up in a parallel thread about Turkey joining the EU
    Think it was explained that he mis placed a word re the charter. It was a textual error. And the guy who made the allegation has since agreed to join Higgins in a public debate.
    And sure FT doesnt speak for Higgins and visa versa Higgins for FT.


  • Options
    #70
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    realismpol wrote: »
    Are we? I woudn't go far as to say dastardly. That would attribute some sort of intelligence. I mean our own taoiseach has admitted he didn't read the treaty in the first campaign despite urging a yes vote. woof woof!

    Yeah maybe he didn't read it because he was there negotiating it in the first place.


  • Options
    #71
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Think it was explained that he mis placed a word re the charter. It was a textual error. And the guy who made the allegation has since agreed to join Higgins in a public debate.
    And sure FT doesnt speak for Higgins and visa versa Higgins for FT.

    well what about all

    "stop privatization"

    posters himself/socialists have put up?



    what does Lisbon have to do with Privatization? the word is not even in the treaty!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Higgins I think is someone most would agree with...

    I doubt it, but they might find him less offensive than many other no campaigners.
    I would also agree there are moderate voices on yes side too.

    I don't accept the implication that Higgins is a moderate.


  • Options
    #73
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Are you implying that Libertas is not a less appealing group? I'd be hard pressed to declare a preference between Declan Ganley and Richard Greene.

    He's got more media savvy and is far more polished than him. They don't come across half as extremist as they actually are.


  • Options
    #74
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I doubt it, but they might find him less offensive than many other no campaigners.



    I don't accept the implication that Higgins is a moderate.
    The fact that he is giving a voice to a section of workers who are exploited does not make him extreme either. Again was asked who would be acceptable voice for No and said Higgins.


  • Options
    #75
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    nesf wrote: »
    He's got more media savvy and is far more polished than him. They don't come across half as extremist as they actually are.

    I presume "He" is Ganley, and "him" is Greene. I agree that Ganley is polished. That makes him more dangerous to the yes side. I was, however, mildly heartened by his participation in Marion Finucane's programme this morning: he was confronted more robustly than was typical of the last campaign, and it unsettled him.


  • Options
    #76
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    The fact that he is giving a voice to a section of workers who are exploited does not make him extreme either. Again was asked who would be acceptable voice for No and said Higgins.

    Higgins' politics aren't remotely mainstream though. He did an excellent job as a TD on the GAMA issue and others but he is a socialist in a country where the mainstream is decidedly centrist.


  • Options
    #77
    ronan001
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭ronan001


    i'm amazed that people are still in the no camp.

    we have been given assurances that the european court will not and i emphasise not over ride our constitution. Why do people still think it will?

    The amount of benefits the european union has brought to ireland, everyone one of us have benefited from europe if you've ever walked a street, drove a car, went to school or college, products you buy in shops, all sorts of standards in food and equipment and prices when buying things to protect all of us.

    I accept that we could find things that do not work well, but i genuinely believe there are much more that are good than bad and this is the same with no or yes in lisbon. If we are seen to be interested in europe it continues to keep us in the 'gang' and business and employers will continue to come here.

    Even NAMA, whether you agree with it or not, our governments money is only good because we have the backing of europe. If we didnt we would be in a worse position than Iceland. Imagine if we still had the pound, it would be worth less than toilet roll.

    Another point, if people like the uk nationalist party, men and women who would have it back to the days of the british empire where there was no value on anyones life unless they were british, if these people are voting no, then please take a step back and ask yourself are you the same as them? do you want the same world as a uk nationalist? Please ask that, i hope the answer is that you are not the same as them and you would like to see europe and the world develop as it has been over the last 30 years.

    We are lucky enough to be a citizen in arguebly the best continent the earth has too offer, from past mistakes that have been made and the lessons learned, we have a continent that has all manner of people living together quite successfully compared to the rest of the world. dont turn your back on it, it may not be 100% perfect but europe and a vote Yes really is the best option for ireland and the world.


  • Options
    #78
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    nesf wrote: »
    Higgins' politics aren't remotely mainstream though. He did an excellent job as a TD on the GAMA issue and others but he is a socialist in a country where the mainstream is decidedly centrist.
    Well maybe mainstream in this country is not necessarily a good word given what is going on at the moment. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And certainly I would not judge Higgins because he attempts to look out for those less fortunate.


  • Options
    #79
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Well maybe mainstream in this country is not necessarily a good word given what is going on at the moment. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And certainly I would not judge Higgins because he attempts to look out for those less fortunate.

    I would judge Higgins for being part of a political movement which seeks to move all private property to state ownership though...


  • Options
    #80
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I would judge Higgins for being part of a political movement which seeks to move all private property to state ownership though...
    Well in the case of a few developers that wouldn't be a bad idea. How ludicrous is it they can move their properties into the names of their spouses to stop it being repossessed.


  • Options
    #81
    ronan001
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭ronan001


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Well maybe mainstream in this country is not necessarily a good word given what is going on at the moment. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And certainly I would not judge Higgins because he attempts to look out for those less fortunate.

    This comment about the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    Examine it, these people who you call the poor, what is stopping them from becoming rich or even comfortable, its themselves. Think of the many thousands of men and women in their 50's and 60 in this country. The would grew up here in the 1940's and 50's. Very few had money in this country then, but many many thousands of them have been able to get themselves out of poverty and have led very successful and wealthy lives. These 'poor' could do the same, there is nothing stopping them, it takes hard work and time, spending their life in a job and education.


    This idea that the rich get richer? With the exception of a high rate interest, rich people do something for the money to 'get richer' and they entitled to do as they please with their money just as i or you would be if had money.

    "rich get richer and poor get poorer" It just sounds like a lazy persons way of saying i should have lots of money for doing nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Well in the case of a few developers that wouldn't be a bad idea. How ludicrous is it they can move their properties into the names of their spouses to stop it being repossessed.

    That doesn't work. If they put up their home as collateral, moving it into the name of your spouse doesn't get around that. Otherwise banks would never be able to claim what's legally owed to them.


  • Options
    #83
    ronan001
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭ronan001


    nesf wrote: »
    That doesn't work. If they put up their home as collateral, moving it into the name of your spouse doesn't get around that. Otherwise banks would never be able to claim what's legally owed to them.

    I seen eddie hobbs is blogging that they are doing this in an attempt to make it difficult for NAMA? No idea if its true.


  • Options
    #84
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Seizing assets to pay for loan defaults isn't even on the same planet as seizing privately held, honestly earned property to redistribute to the 'working classes'.


  • Options
    #85
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    ronan001 wrote: »
    I seen eddie hobbs is blogging that they are doing this in an attempt to make it difficult for NAMA? No idea if its true.

    No idea, what I do know is that if they had previously put their homes up as collateral then their wives would have had to sign off on it, making moving the property into their names a no-win situation since the bank could still claim it if they defaulted on loans.

    If they hadn't put their homes up as collateral previously then I don't know what the situation would be unless they were running a non-limited company business which surely would have been very unlikely.


Advertisement