O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Sam have you got the article number on that one?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62252440&postcount=2840

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

well that blew your credibility! The Irish Times fully support a 'yes' vote, but are allowing some space for debate.

He was joking

PopeBuckfastXVI

Plotician wrote: »

well that blew your credibility! The Irish Times fully support a 'yes' vote, but are allowing some space for debate.

*facepalm*

poochiem

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Millward Brown did one of them. They polled 1600 people I think which gives an accuracy of 2-3%. There were two more done, one by a college I think and another by an EU organisation. The results were similar for all of them.

Our representation isn't halved though, that's only half the story. One of the no side's main tactics is selectively quoting the treaty and deliberately leaving out the part that proves they're lying, such as Joe Higgins who says that a particular clause will privatise health and education even though the next paragraph explicitly excludes them. But you're right, the yes campaign has been generally brutal

yeah well 1600 people, its a bit arsey to say i was polled so no? I didn't even hear about it, nor has anyone i know been contacted.

anyway, thanks at least you're making an effort and not just saying everything is a lie or attacking me for asking questions like some of the contributors here seem to do.

I'm still undecided but will not be deciding my vote on the basis of who else is voting yes or no - that is pathetic in my opinion.

Plotician

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He was joking

Sussed that afterwards - but hey i appreciate the advice to 'read between the lines'!

PopeBuckfastXVI

poochiem wrote: »

yeah well 1600 people, its a bit arsey to say i was polled so no? I didn't even hear about it, nor has anyone i know been contacted.

Believe it or not a sample size of 1600, when properly conducted using statistical science techniques gives a margin of error of roughly 2 to 3%.

Hard to believe, but true nonetheless.

Sam Vimes

poochiem wrote: »

yeah well 1600 people, its a bit arsey to say i was polled so no? I didn't even hear about it, nor has anyone i know been contacted.

The maths of polls is solid. You don't have to poll the whole country, you just have to follow correct methodology through random dispersion. 1600 gets you within 2-3% accuracy. you cannot argue with the maths gods!! :pac:

poochiem wrote: »

anyway, thanks at least you're making an effort and not just saying everything is a lie or attacking me for asking questions like some of the contributors here seem to do.

I'm still undecided but will not be deciding my vote on the basis of who else is voting yes or no - that is pathetic in my opinion.

Rest assured that any of your fears can and will be settled as we pick lie after lie apart, leaving the benign, beneficial and above all boring truth

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the ... above all boring truth

You can sing that...

Plotician

Actually the latest Gael Poll is more relevant than i thought, given it's accuracy last time.

To quote "This poll is accurate and historic because we know from the last Gael Poll, published in the Irish Sun on June 4th 2008 that the poll accurately predicted that the Lisbon Treaty would be defeated by a margin of 54% for the No side versus 46% for Yes campaigners, with the actual results accurately reflecting that poll, 53.4% saying No and 46.6% saying Yes. This has been the most accurate poll in the country".

Putting personal thoughts aside, it is actually quite interesting.

poochiem

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You can sing that...

its hard to tell online if you're being serious or not, side issue I know sorry for being tangental but how can you possible say that a pll of 1600 people can be proved right by mathematics to within 3%? This is Ireland! they get the polls wrong at every election, every referendum. You could poll 1600 southside Dubs, they're not even Irish strictly speaking , so how can you extrapolate a nation's opinion from that?

I'll tune back in here tonight and peruse the boards a bit more too. thanks.

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

Actually the latest Gael Poll is more relevant than i thought, given it's accuracy last time.

To quote "This poll is accurate and historic because we know from the last Gael Poll, published in the Irish Sun on June 4th 2008 that the poll accurately predicted that the Lisbon Treaty would be defeated by a margin of 54% for the No side versus 46% for Yes campaigners, with the actual results accurately reflecting that poll, 53.4% saying No and 46.6% saying Yes. This has been the most accurate poll in the country".

Putting personal thoughts aside, it is actually quite interesting.

The Gael poll guessed last time. It's associated with Coir and they only polled Coir members and friends. The definition of a bad poll

poochiem wrote: »

its hard to tell online if you're being serious or not, side issue I know sorry for being tangental but how can you possible say that a pll of 1600 people can be proved right by mathematics to within 3%? This is Ireland! they get the polls wrong at every election, every referendum. You could poll 1600 southside Dubs, they're not even Irish strictly speaking , so how can you extrapolate a nation's opinion from that?

I'll tune back in here tonight and peruse the boards a bit more too. thanks.

That's why you don't poll southside dubs you branch out and try to get as random a dispersion as possible of age groups, classes, areas etc. I know its unintuitive but the maths are sound

PopeBuckfastXVI

poochiem wrote: »

its hard to tell online if you're being serious or not, side issue I know sorry for being tangental but how can you possible say that a pll of 1600 people can be proved right by mathematics to within 3%? This is Ireland! they get the polls wrong at every election, every referendum. You could poll 1600 southside Dubs, they're not even Irish strictly speaking , so how can you extrapolate a nation's opinion from that?

I'll tune back in here tonight and peruse the boards a bit more too. thanks.

I'm serious that the Lisbon treaty is ultimately very boring yes.

That's why I said if you apply proper statistical techniques it will be accurate to within 2-3%.

Sampling 1600 southside dubs is obviously not a valid statistical technique when extrapolating for the whole country, but would give you, a margin of error of significantly less than 1% for the south of Dublin.

You can read up on statistics here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_analysis

Raskolnikov

I had a lot of respect for Pat Cox before this, but am shocked he threw the terrorist jibe at MLM.

Thought Joe Higgins has been far from convincing in the Lisbon debate. His reasons for a no vote in the treaty seem vague and confused.

People hate Ganley, but I thought he was brilliant. He's the sole reason that Lisbon has went from having a 0% of being rejected, to giving the No side a sniff.

Still grudgingly going to vote Yes, despite the despicable lies being told on the Yes side ("Vote Yes to get us out of this economic mess" :rolleyes: do these idiots think we were born yesterday?).

K-9

Plotician wrote: »

Actually the latest Gael Poll is more relevant than i thought, given it's accuracy last time.

To quote "This poll is accurate and historic because we know from the last Gael Poll, published in the Irish Sun on June 4th 2008 that the poll accurately predicted that the Lisbon Treaty would be defeated by a margin of 54% for the No side versus 46% for Yes campaigners, with the actual results accurately reflecting that poll, 53.4% saying No and 46.6% saying Yes. This has been the most accurate poll in the country".

Putting personal thoughts aside, it is actually quite interesting.

From the thread on that poll it would appear the poll wasn't published in the Sun, it was just mentioned.

The last MRBI poll before the vote was pretty accurate too.

K-9

Raskolnikov wrote: »

I had a lot of respect for Pat Cox before this, but am shocked he threw the terrorist jibe at MLM.

Ach, but did he really? SF keep calling them "so called" guarantees so pointing out the Good Friday Agreement was good enough for SF is a good point. If that is seen as a reminder of their past, it can't be helped.

Plotician

See Michael McDowell is looking for 'a way back in'...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0925/1224255204240.html?via=rel

badinfleunce

123john123 wrote: »

Badinfluence, you are the ipetimy of a hypocritical idiot who is going to vote no. Example, you say the yes campaigners are "scare mongering" however you ended your rant by saying if we vote yes our grandsons are going to be conscripted to war. Pathetic

If you listened to the debate last night, you may have noticed Mr Cox destroy MLM over the war issue because he knows the facts.

What is it with Irish people and their intelligence, really annoys me. Everyone moans about FF but "we" voted them in! "We" voted in bertie when he was in the middle of a tribunal for pocketing cash. It seems as from the last vote on Lisbon, only sensible areas vote yes, this should never have gone to referendum.

Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.

This in effect means that we have to help our European neighbours in times of war and offer them whatever military capabilities we have and whatever civilian capabilities we have. FACT! - meaning our population is at risk of being drafted! Thats what I said.

Now the fact of the matter is that the gaurantees being put in place will only remain gaurantees as along as the politicians who signed them remain in office. This means that they can become null and void in the future and they are not part of European Law because every dog on the street knows that in order for Law to be passed by Europe it has to be ratified by the 27 member states. These gaurantees are not! FACT!

Pat Cox sounded like an arrogant dictator pointing his finger and stating LAW LAW LAW. We live in a democracy and the only one who can determine and pass judgement on the law is the highest court in the land which is the European Court. Not Pat Cox.
None of these gaurantees will become law until tested and if we refer back to the Maastricht treaty where Denmark were given opt-outs we have seen that these assurances have been over ruled on a number of occasions raising the suspicision of the gaurantees that are associated with Lisbon 2.

The fact is that the ‘declarations’ have no force in EU law and therefore cannot be seen as real ‘guarantees’

The Lisbon Treaty abolishes the national veto in more than 60 areas of policy – on everything from transport to the rights of criminal suspects and even some aspects of foreign policy.
Ireland will lose 40% of its power to block EU laws it disagrees with – compared with a 4% decrease in Germany’s power to block legislation.
The Treaty creates a powerful new EU President, ending the system of rotating presidencies which have hitherto allowed smaller countries like Ireland to set the agenda in Europe for six months at a time. The Treaty creates an EU Foreign Minister in all but name, and gives the European Court of Justice significant new powers to act in sensitive areas such as Justice and Home Affairs.

The Lisbon Treaty is a carbon copy of the original Constitutional Treaty that was voted down in both France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Open Europe's side-by-side comparison of the two texts found that 96% of the original reappears in the Lisbon Treaty, once the references to the EU’s ‘symbols’ had been removed.

Charlie Mc Creevy stated "95% of europeans would vote No given the chance"

We cant trust our government with a simple cheque book for claiming legitimate expenses - why would we trust the meaningless gaurantees when not a word of the Lisbon treaty has changed!

We will give away our independence - something our country went to war on and died for. Now our government want to throw this all away! No way. VOTE NO!

ei.sdraob

badinfleunce wrote: »

Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.

This in effect means that we have to help our European neighbours in times of war and offer them whatever military capabilities we have and whatever civilian capabilities we have. FACT! - meaning our population is at risk of being drafted! Thats what I said.

Now the fact of the matter is that the gaurantees being put in place will only remain gaurantees as along as the politicians who signed them remain in office. This means that they can become null and void in the future and they are not part of European Law because every dog on the street knows that in order for Law to be passed by Europe it has to be ratified by the 27 member states. These gaurantees are not! FACT!

Pat Cox sounded like an arrogant dictator pointing his finger and stating LAW LAW LAW. We live in a democracy and the only one who can determine and pass judgement on the law is the highest court in the land which is the European Court. Not Pat Cox.
None of these gaurantees will become law until tested and if we refer back to the Maastricht treaty where Denmark were given opt-outs we have seen that these assurances have been over ruled on a number of occasions raising the suspicision of the gaurantees that are associated with Lisbon 2.

The fact is that the ‘declarations’ have no force in EU law and therefore cannot be seen as real ‘guarantees’

The Lisbon Treaty abolishes the national veto in more than 60 areas of policy – on everything from transport to the rights of criminal suspects and even some aspects of foreign policy.
Ireland will lose 40% of its power to block EU laws it disagrees with – compared with a 4% decrease in Germany’s power to block legislation.
The Treaty creates a powerful new EU President, ending the system of rotating presidencies which have hitherto allowed smaller countries like Ireland to set the agenda in Europe for six months at a time. The Treaty creates an EU Foreign Minister in all but name, and gives the European Court of Justice significant new powers to act in sensitive areas such as Justice and Home Affairs.

The Lisbon Treaty is a carbon copy of the original Constitutional Treaty that was voted down in both France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Open Europe's side-by-side comparison of the two texts found that 96% of the original reappears in the Lisbon Treaty, once the references to the EU’s ‘symbols’ had been removed.

Charlie Mc Creevy stated "95% of europeans would vote No given the chance"

We cant trust our government with a simple cheque book for claiming legitimate expenses - why would we trust the meaningless gaurantees when not a word of the Lisbon treaty has changed!

We will give away our independence - something our country went to war on and died for. Now our government want to throw this all away! No way. VOTE NO!

Is the Good Friday Agreement null and void so?

Sam Vimes

Text of the guarantees

SECTION C: SECURITY AND DEFENCE wrote:

The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

WeeBushy

Plotician wrote: »

See Michael McDowell is looking for 'a way back in'...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0925/1224255204240.html?via=rel

I wouldn't call a former minister for justice, and eminent barrister, giving his legal opinion on the lisbon treaty as "looking for a way back in". Garret Fitzgerald gives his opinion on many topics in the Irish Times and you would hardly say he's looking for a way back in.

badinfleunce

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Is the Good Friday Agreement null and void so?

Nothing got to do with Lisbon. No comparison whatsoever.

badinfleunce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Text of the guarantees

Its a gaurantee as I already stated - NOT EU LAW! Dont you get it! The Lisbon treaty is still in full effect. These gaurantees are just Annexes.

Sam Vimes

badinfleunce wrote: »

Its a gaurantee as I already stated - NOT EU LAW! Dont you get it! The Lisbon treaty is still in full effect. These gaurantees are just Annexes.

The guarantees are fully compatible with the treaty. Our neutrality was never at risk

Same page:

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

The Decision of the 27 EU Heads of States or Government agreed at the June European Council on Ireland’s legal guarantees will constitute an international agreement, which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This will be legally binding under international law and will be registered with the United Nations.

Yes it is very much legally binding. Don't believe the lies. The idea that we'd be forced to do all things military was a lie when they said it at Nice, it was a lie at the first Lisbon referendum and it remains a lie today. They're also lying about the guarantees not being binding. It's gone through the same procedure as the Good Friday agreement which was good enough for Sinn Fein then but now they're trying to rubbish the same procedure they lauded when convincing their membership to accept the agreement

Plotician

WeeBushy wrote: »

I wouldn't call a former minister for justice, and eminent barrister, giving his legal opinion on the lisbon treaty as "looking for a way back in". Garret Fitzgerald gives his opinion on many topics in the Irish Times and you would hardly say he's looking for a way back in.

Only basing my thoughts on his own words "retiring from public life".

badinfleunce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The guarantees are fully compatible with the treaty. Our neutrality was never at risk

Same page:



Yes it is very much legally binding.

Where is it part of EU Law?.............Its not!

Why has the treaty itself not been changed and a new one drafted?............because we are agreeing with what is in the Lisbon treaty and that is Law. The dressed up gaurantees are simply notes to assist with interpretation of the treaty but dont form any part of the law. If they are tested in a court only then will the full interpretation set precedent.
You cannot gaurantee Judgement.

So when you use the words "legally binding" this is to mislead people into a false sense of security.

Any agreement can be legally binding but if tested in court the law supersedes. The Law in this case is the Lisbon Treaty not the "legally binding" so called Gaurantees.

Dirk Gently

turgon wrote: »

I dont see how agreeing with MoL is seen as "cool" when half the people you mention such agreement to are liable to verbally abuse you. Did it occur to you that the attraction lies in the fact he has beliefs that he is absolutely unashamed of standing up for, and that people who rarely see these beliefs voiced in the open are attracted to that? No? Easier to lump them in with the "too cool for school" gang rather than contemplate whats really going on?

It's ok, I actually do get it. I do get that the attraction to him comes from what is percieved to be unashamed honesty about this views and I do know that's why people like him but I think it's a false economy putting your faith in him for a political debate. He's too individualistic and self serving to offer anything more than sound bite, self glorification and self promotion. He should stick to the blow job promotions to get himself and his airline in the news and dreaming up new ways of charging customers.

I had no problem with someone like Michael mc Dowell coming out with the same sort of unashamed honesty about his views, I found it refreshing too even though I didn't agree with much of it but at least he backed himself up and was able to articulate his points. O Leary is a showman without that kind of substance. My main gripe is him getting headline slot on primetime with Ganley. Neither are worthy of the slot particularly when there where others taking it seriously who the time would have been better allocated to.

ei.sdraob

badinfleunce wrote: »

Nothing got to do with Lisbon. No comparison whatsoever.

its an international agreements

just like the Lisbon Guarantees


seee?

Sam Vimes

badinfleunce wrote: »

Where is it part of EU Law?.............Its not!

Yes it is. It's part of EU law in the text I just quoted. It's also part of international law.

badinfleunce wrote: »

Why has the treaty itself not been changed and a new one drafted?............because we are agreeing with what is in the Lisbon treaty and that is Law. The dressed up gaurantees are simply notes to assist with interpretation of the treaty but dont form any part of the law. If they are tested in a court only then will the full interpretation set precedent.
You cannot gaurantee Judgement.

Yes I can guarantee judgement. Our neutrality was never at risk. Never. The constant repetition that it was was simply a lie. What happened was:

• The EU, with the involvement of Ireland drafted a treaty that did not effect our neutrality
• Certain groups lied to the Irish people and told them their neutrality was at risk
• Our government went to the EU who guaranteed us that our neutrality was not at risk and made these guarantees legally binding. There was no requirement to change the treaty because our neutrality was never at risk, it was just a lie
• Those same groups who lied to us the first time lied to us again by telling us the guarantees aren't binding, despite the fact that they quite clearly are
• Even if the guarantees weren't binding it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference because our neutrality was never at risk. It was just a lie

badinfleunce wrote: »

So when you use the words "legally binding" this is to mislead people into a false sense of security.

Any agreement can be legally binding but if tested in court the law supersedes. The Law in this case is the Lisbon Treaty not the "legally binding" so called Gaurantees.

The law in this case is both the treaty and the guarantees but, just to reiterate, the guarantees are 100% compatible with the treaty. They say the same thing as the treaty. They confirm its contents, they do not change its contents. Our neutrality was never at risk. You have been lied to

badinfleunce

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its an international agreements

just like the Lisbon Guarantees


seee?

No enlighten me? This comparison is a bit lame. The Good Friday Agreement is an international agreement between the British and Irish governments. Not an agreement between EU states and the constitution of Ireland was changed to reflect the agreement making it Law.

The Lisbon Treaty is still the same and Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’

Nothing has changed here. The thing to note here is making "Civilian" capabilities available to the Union. This means providing our people, the people of Ireland, for military operations whatever those operations may be.

badinfleunce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it is. It's part of EU law in the text I just quoted. It's also part of international law.

Yes I can guarantee judgement. Our neutrality was never at risk. Never. The constant repetition that it was was simply a lie. What happened was:

• The EU, with the involvement of Ireland drafted a treaty that did not effect our neutrality
• Certain groups lied to the Irish people and told them their neutrality was at risk
• Our government went to the EU who guaranteed us that our neutrality was not at risk and made these guarantees legally binding. There was no requirement to change the treaty because our neutrality was never at risk, it was just a lie
• Those same groups who lied to us the first time lied to us again by telling us the guarantees aren't binding, despite the fact that they quite clearly are
• Even if the guarantees weren't binding it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference because our neutrality was never at risk. It was just a lie

The law in this case is both the treaty and the guarantees but, just to reiterate, the guarantees are 100% compatible with the treaty. They say the same thing as the treaty. They confirm its contents, they do not change its contents. Our neutrality was never at risk. You have been lied to

ARTICLE 28 (c) 3 - Read it!