9 Days to go and all to play for

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't turn this referendum into a political issue. That is what it has become because government policy on our membership of the EU has continued to polarise the electorate. That this has become an issue wider than the treaty itself is down to the bungling and ineptitude of the present government and the EU.

Ah, here. You're not even trying now. You're basically saying that the government has polarised the electorate by not agreeing with the parties that want it to pursue different policies.

Could you at least try to make sense?

syklops

Happyman42 wrote: »

Avoiding the issues much people? :rolleyes:

We have to call the No side on so called lies, but we are asked to ignore the Governments. Very good.

What effing lies? Aside from your conspiracy theory that the sitting government is not working for the best of the country. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You don't understand something thus it constitutes a lie?

Enda said we have not sought to default on our sovereign debt like Greece. Simon said we looked for flexibility in bailing in the banking senior bondholders. Not the same thing at all (although VB clearly tried to muddy the water).

Enda talking about apples. Simon talking about pears. Vincent suggesting that anything Simon says about pears contradicts what Enda said about apples. It doesn't and thus does not evidence a lie.

from around 14 minutes in. Listen to how he changes tack after the clip is played and also, use the oldest method in the book, look at his eyes and his discomfiture and tell me what you think he is doing.
http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/0/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

if anything, Vincent let him off the hook, because a career was going down the pan.

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

from around 14 minutes in. Listen to how he changes tack after the clip is played and also, use the oldest method in the book, look at his eyes and his discomfiture and tell me what you think he is doing.
http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/0/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

if anything, Vincent let him off the hook, because a career was going down the pan.

Vincent was off the wall - the clip he played involved Enda talking about our Sovereign debt, Simon was talking about senior bank bondholders.

Hell, I'd be uncomfortable too put in the position of being in a debate chaired by someone so willing to distort the truth, because at that moment in time it became clear that there was no way Simon Coveney could win when his only weapon was the truth and Vincent was clearly impervious to it!

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...use the oldest method in the book, look at his eyes and his discomfiture and tell me what you think he is doing.

Why would you trouble yourself with stupid facts when you can watch some TV and read minds instead?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

from around 14 minutes in. Listen to how he changes tack after the clip is played and also, use the oldest method in the book, look at his eyes and his discomfiture and tell me what you think he is doing.
http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/0/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

if anything, Vincent let him off the hook, because a career was going down the pan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y32PWF-zxqs

Look at Patterson here caught out on the button issue, look at his eyes and his discomfiture, he knows he's caught by his opponent, he can't answer the question, he can't explain why he is the better man to be on the button, he just blusters incredulously, now you tell me what you think he is doing?

Happyman42

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y32PWF-zxqs

Look at Patterson here caught out on the button issue, look at his eyes and his discomfiture, he knows he's caught by his opponent, he can't answer the question, he can't explain why he is the better man to be on the button, he just blusters incredulously, now you tell me what you think he is doing?

Struggling to remain credible? :rolleyes:

Ozymandius2011

This ruling does not mean we cannot block the ESM at Oireachtas level. Judge Hogan refers to the govt’s obligations to the EU. However he does not rule on whether the Oireachtas can block ratification. So there remains uncertainty and it would be foolish for us to commit to something permanently without sufficient clarity. If I were SF I would emphasise the element of the ruling that is somewhat in their favour – that themodalities of ratification of the ESM are unclear and so it may still be possible for the oireachtas to block the ESM. The term “veto” and “block” are different for the purposes of this case. Judge Hogan appears to be taking a very narrow interpretation of the term “veto” as applying only to governments, while saying he cannot rule on the question of how the ESM Treaty is ratified or otherwise. So there remains uncertainty here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

Struggling to remain credible? :rolleyes:

In the face of irrelevant waffle and non sequiters? Very much so!

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why would you trouble yourself with stupid facts when you can watch some TV and read minds instead?

Time and again over 40 years the structures and interventions of the EU have not worked. the crisis that has revealed the fundamental flaws and inequities in that system are fast coming to a head. That is a fact you won't deal with and further, you are proposing yet another scheme that will only maintain the status quo, a status that sees the EU and its economy in tatters.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Time and again over 40 years the structures and interventions of the EU have not worked.

That's a rhetorical soundbite, not an argument. What specific structures and interventions haven't worked, and what structures and interventions would have worked better?

the crisis that has revealed the fundamental flaws and inequities in that system are fast coming to a head. That is a fact you won't deal with and further, you are proposing yet another scheme that will only maintain the status quo, a status that sees the EU and its economy in tatters.

More rhetoric. What are the fundamental flaws? List them. What are the inequities? With what would you replace them? What's your alternative scheme, and how do you propose to get the rest of the member states to sign up to it?

You know, if you don't start answering questions fairly soon, people might start to suspect that you don't actually have any answers.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are at this kinda craic on a few threads. If you have nothing constructive to add to the debate, say nothing.

That would sound better if you'd supported any of your claims with facts - or even explanations. As it is, not so much.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a rhetorical soundbite, not an argument. What specific structures and interventions haven't worked, and what structures and interventions would have worked better?

Well to demonstrate what I mean, let us use one of those words....intervention. Would you say the EU policy of Intervention in the beef industry here was a good thing?
If like me, you think it was a disastrous policy, could you tell me, how much of the squandered, stolen and diverted money they got back, how many are in jail for what happened? Because, if it learned anything, if the system was in the smallest way, competent, shouldn't they have gotten the money back and shouldn't an awful lot of people have gone to jail?
That's just one money making bubble the mandarins of Brussels are responsible for. There are, as we well know, many many more.

rhetoric. What are the fundamental flaws? List them. What are the inequities? With what would you replace them? What's your alternative scheme, and how do you propose to get the rest of the member states to sign up to it?

At least I see the flaws, at least I can see that the Union has ****ed up before and has the potential to **** up again....I'm further ahead than you. What I don't propose doing is handing these incompetents any more control.

You know, if you don't start answering questions fairly soon, people might start to suspect that you don't actually have any answers.

I await your next bit of spin with baited breath. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well to demonstrate what I mean, let us use one of those words....intervention. Would you say the EU policy of Intervention in the beef industry here was a good thing?

I don't have any very strongly-held views on the EU's agricultural policies, but those policies have been agreed between the member states.

If like me, you think it was a disastrous policy, could you tell me, how much of the squandered, stolen and diverted money they got back, how many are in jail for what happened? Because, if it learned anything, if the system was in the smallest way, competent, shouldn't they have gotten the money back and shouldn't an awful lot of people have gone to jail?

You'll have to explain that one to me.

At least I see the flaws, at least I can see that the Union has ****ed up before and has the potential to **** up again....I'm further ahead than you. What I don't propose doing is handing these incompetents any more control.

So, no alternatives, just criticism.

In other words, opposition politics at its most pointless.

syklops

You know, if you don't start answering questions fairly soon, people might start to suspect that you don't actually have any answers.

I await your next bit of spin with baited breath

So no answers then?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't have any very strongly-held views on the EU's agricultural policies, but those policies have been agreed between the member states.

:D You don't have any strongly held views. Do you perhaps have an opinion on how Intervention worked out for this country?
I will remind you that this Treaty has been agreed between some member states too. Is it not natural when assessing one agreement that you look at how past 'agreements' worked out?

You'll have to explain that one to me. So, no alternatives, just criticism.

An EU policy resulted in disaster and rich men getting richer.

In other words, opposition politics at its most pointless.

You don't have any 'strong views' when it suits you, pointless trying to debate with somebody who has an opt cop out clause at the ready.:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

An EU policy resulted in disaster and rich men getting richer.

"No, I don't have an explanation. Have a soundbite instead."

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

"No, I don't have an explanation. Have a soundbite instead."

Isn't that what happened?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well to demonstrate what I mean, let us use one of those words....intervention. Would you say the EU policy of Intervention in the beef industry here was a good thing?
If like me, you think it was a disastrous policy, could you tell me, how much of the squandered, stolen and diverted money they got back, how many are in jail for what happened? Because, if it learned anything, if the system was in the smallest way, competent, shouldn't they have gotten the money back and shouldn't an awful lot of people have gone to jail?
That's just one money making bubble the mandarins of Brussels are responsible for. There are, as we well know, many many more.

I'll have to admit to a lack of knowledge of the agricultural sector, can you point me in the direction of a good source to read up on the incident you're referencing please? Google wasn't much help to me.

ninebeanrows

A trusty tool for these referenda is to see what Sinn Fein are doing and then do the opposite.

Ozymandius2011

Weathercheck wrote: »

A trusty tool for these referenda is to see what Sinn Fein are doing and then do the opposite.

Like the GFA referendum then? :rolleyes:

Happyman42

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'll have to admit to a lack of knowledge of the agricultural sector, can you point me in the direction of a good source to read up on the incident you're referencing please? Google wasn't much help to me.

I can never tell the difference between a 'lack of knowledge' or a 'wilful lack of knowledge' around this place.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can never tell the difference between a 'lack of knowledge' or a 'wilful lack of knowledge' around this place.

You can take my assurances as you will, but it really was a genuine request.

Happyman42

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You can take my assurances as you will, but it really was a genuine request.

There are a myriad of sources to investigate this sorry era in the EU and how it affected Ireland. Try wading through the Beef Tribunal reports.
Once instigated the EU was unable to stop exploitation of the flaws in the policy. Flaws that it didn't forsee or didn't want to forsee.
Here's a potted history of one man's involvement in it. Note some of his cozy relationships too!

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/back-to-business-1331848.html