What the Mainlanders are saying

Aragon wrote:

Ibis wrote:

Look, if you'd opposed me first meeting a girl, opposed my dating her, opposed my becoming her boyfriend, opposed us getting engaged, and opposed us getting married, then what on earth would entitle you to describe yourself as not opposed to the girl?

Actually, that makes it obvious that there is one way you can make that claim - the traditional "it's nothing personal, I think she's a fine girl, but I just think you ought to be single for your own good" - in other words, that SF are not opposed to the EU per se, but to Ireland's involvement with it.

You may like to think that metaphor/analogy is a good one Ibis but it is in fact superficial, facetious and of course unrelated to anything sensible or factual. Supporting the idea of the EU is one thing, as you well know. Accepting its proposals for how it should work, is another entirely. I don't believe that you don't know that though you endlessly like to fudge and deny democratically expressed and legitimate objection. It's legitimate to disagree with the authoritarian tendencies of the EU - something you support and push at every opportunity as though the only thing that matters is for there to be unthinking obedience to all that is decreed and handed down to us from on high. Again, your allegation that Sinn Fein is 'anti EU' is completley untrue - a wilful distortion of their verifiable policies and commitments.

Hmm. I'm not sure you've even addressed my point there - as far as I can see you've simply reiterated the party line, and thrown in a few insults for good measure. This isn't TV, so perhaps you could try for more than a soundbite's worth of phlegm.

SF have opposed every single EU Treaty. At no point have they supported the development of the EU. They opposed Irish entry to the EU, and they have opposed further Irish integration into the EU at every turn. They have also set up stunt votes in the EP to discredit the EU, and cooperated with people like UKIP to do so.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck - the fact that it says it's not a duck simply makes it a dishonest duck. Sorry.

Presumably you can't leave it there, since you seem to have a specific message to get across (that you're not a duck, apparently), but perhaps you could explain how it is that SF have opposed the EU, and Irish involvement in the EU, all along, when you're "not opposed to the EU or Irish involvement"?

From the Telegraph:

”If the Irish wanted to keep their commissioner they have done a pretty bad
job. At the moment if we were to axe a commissioner it would be easy to
guess whose it would be,” said a diplomat.

Not a very good diplomat you would have to say.....

MikeW wrote:

From the Telegraph:

”If the Irish wanted to keep their commissioner they have done a pretty bad
job. At the moment if we were to axe a commissioner it would be easy to
guess whose it would be,” said a diplomat.

Not a very good diplomat you would have to say.....

He sounds more like this type of Diplomat

I agree that Labour were squeezed in the media coverage but among those that were to be heard I didn't discern many of them passionately endorsing the treaty. They did seem to get a disproportionate amount of coverage in recent years but since the General Election, rte in particular seem to believe that only FF and FG exist.[quote]

If Labour had done as SF did and chose one person to do the talking for them, they might have had a recognisable voice, but they fudged too and got lost in the mire. Their posters indicated that they probably didn't have a lot to say anyway, though they supported the Treaty - according to Michael D at least, predominantly on the basis of the Charter.

Now if Labour had laboured (ahem) the charter in the way that SF and Libertas laboured the Commissioner or taxation (and I'm fascinated at their attempts to wriggle out of that one, and the accompanying lack of credibility it must bring), there may have been a saleable plus to the treaty.

But they didn't. No wonder Gilmore looks so pensive in those posters; he was hoping for inspiration.

ibis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Ibis wrote:

Look, if you'd opposed me first meeting a girl, opposed my dating her, opposed my becoming her boyfriend, opposed us getting engaged, and opposed us getting married, then what on earth would entitle you to describe yourself as not opposed to the girl?

Actually, that makes it obvious that there is one way you can make that claim - the traditional "it's nothing personal, I think she's a fine girl, but I just think you ought to be single for your own good" - in other words, that SF are not opposed to the EU per se, but to Ireland's involvement with it.

You may like to think that metaphor/analogy is a good one Ibis but it is in fact superficial, facetious and of course unrelated to anything sensible or factual. Supporting the idea of the EU is one thing, as you well know. Accepting its proposals for how it should work, is another entirely. I don't believe that you don't know that though you endlessly like to fudge and deny democratically expressed and legitimate objection. It's legitimate to disagree with the authoritarian tendencies of the EU - something you support and push at every opportunity as though the only thing that matters is for there to be unthinking obedience to all that is decreed and handed down to us from on high. Again, your allegation that Sinn Fein is 'anti EU' is completley untrue - a wilful distortion of their verifiable policies and commitments.

Hmm. I'm not sure you've even addressed my point there - as far as I can see you've simply reiterated the party line, and thrown in a few insults for good measure. This isn't TV, so perhaps you could try for more than a soundbite's worth of phlegm.

SF have opposed every single EU Treaty. At no point have they supported the development of the EU. They opposed Irish entry to the EU, and they have opposed further Irish integration into the EU at every turn. They have also set up stunt votes in the EP to discredit the EU, and cooperated with people like UKIP to do so.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck - the fact that it says it's not a duck simply makes it a dishonest duck. Sorry.

Presumably you can't leave it there, since you seem to have a specific message to get across (that you're not a duck, apparently), but perhaps you could explain how it is that SF have opposed the EU, and Irish involvement in the EU, all along, when you're "not opposed to the EU or Irish involvement"?

This is an interesting, if rather futile argument.

On Sunday's Political Party it was hilarious to watch Mary Lou fudge the issue of the commissioner - that the Taoiseach should negotiate that we get to keep ours, rather than losing him (her?) in the first tranche. What an about-turn?! Declan Ganley was singing the same tune and I hope to God that the public have been listening to Brian Cowen today on the subject.

It was criminal of ML and Ganley to campaign on the basis of the loss of a commissioner - Mary Lou especially since she is an MEP. Whatever about Mary Coughlan mortifying herself with her lack of knowledge, at least she didn't deliberately set out to misinform the public and take advantage of a general lack of knowledge.

I heard Cowen today where he gave SF a smack for their poster campaign on the Commissioner; also heard Ganley getting put on the spot last week on radio as the Nos were winning where he was asked what suggestions he had for Cowen and extremely lamely I thought he spun the keeping the Commissioner line. They use it because it's the most evident change in influence but not the show stopper at all that they claim the Treaty to be.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that Coir and Libertas don't represent anyone. They have never received an electoral mandate.

At least Sinn Fein have a mandate to make representations.

We simply do not know how many people voted No on the back of a Libertas or Coir campaign.

That's true, but they are part of the framework of opposition to this Treaty, they have to be accommodated if we want a new referendum passed. Sinn Féin are anti-EU, so I fail to see what can placate them, short of a withdrawal from the EU.

I think they put that one to bed. Everytime Mary Lou opened her mouth she qualified what she was going to say with "We are not anti-Europe but..".

Just because Mary Liou MacDonald said it doesn't make it true and just because she said it doesn't make it the official SF party line. They are anti-EU, for the reasons which ibis so eloquently outlines.

Libertas, otoh, could cut a good deal and deliver their voters in a second referendum for a Yes win.

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

"Our list of allies grows thin, Gandalf".

Hardly, we'll turn this thing around.

I don't think we will. I think the fact that the Germans are making soothing noises is more important.

Also, I see that the French have managed to find extra reserves of cheek, and blame the European Commission for the No vote by "not addressing citizens' concerns about rising oil and food prices". The Commission has privately rejected this, arguing that French officials had caused more problems during the campaign by being outspoken about corporate tax and threatening to punish Ireland for a No vote.

Well isn't that just typical of them ...

But it's not even a change in influence, Audi because the decision was made years ago. And now they have the gall to suggest it be changed back? It's a measure of how badly the Yes side reacted to some of the spurious messages put across by the No side that such an obvious factual inaccuracy could have gained such credence.

By the way, I'm not impressed with the sulky whine of Brian Cowen and others that "because we've gone and said no we're going to be punished, you mark my words, by losing our commissioner first. I told you so" - or words to that effect. It's simply a continuation of the scaremongering and not a little defeatest.

Quote :

Just because Mary Liou MacDonald said it doesn't make it true and just because she said it doesn't make it the official SF party line. They are anti-EU, for the reasons which ibis so eloquently outlines.

But Mary Lou was the party line, she was the embodiment of SF for this campaign and I don't think you can separate the campaigner from the party in this instance.

Quote :

Libertas, otoh, could cut a good deal and deliver their voters in a second referendum for a Yes win.

I'm going to put off until tomorrow night going to see the Incredible Hulk to hear how you explain that one, A-T, le do thoil.

Libertas are in no position to cut a deal with anyone; Apart from the fact that they have no clear mandate and a paucity of obvious supporters (who are happy to anonymously donate money but not actively campaign, it seems) their campaign had no integrity. It was a No At Any Cost Campaign for reasons yet to be clarified. It was disjointed, lacked any coherence in the way they jumped on every conceivable bandwagon as one argument after another was discredited; DG saying that maybe abortion could be introduced under Lisbon on Q&A last Monday night was the most appalling grasping at straws I've ever heard. It was a last-gasp attempt to leave some bit of doubt in the minds of voters and it was a scandalous manipulation on the part of a man who should know better, utterly disingenuous. Whatever limited credibility he had up to that point was immediately lost irretrievably in that moment.

And in that light if we have to rely on DG to deliver anything for this country, I'll emigrate.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My own theory on Sinn Fein is that a No vote guarantees them disproportionately large wafts of public funded airtime due to the Coughlan judgement, for little investment. This is to serve them for national electoral gain, not for EU purposes.
But that's just my theory.

By that logic you could just as easily say that FF,FG,Lab, Pd and ,em, the greens argued in favour of the treaty for electoral gain. If there had been a yes vote....these parties would have been as obnoxious in their vitriol and condescension as they are being on the wrong side of the result. I'm thinking Gay Mitchell here.

And given the paucity of even and balanced coverage that Sinn Féin receives in the media, if that was their only reason, then fair play to them. That's what political parties do. The spin coming out of the labour party at the moment, it's like they were against it all along.

The old Dem-Lefters probaby were.

Seems like that.But was de Rossa not unswerving in his support?

de Rossa was always the thinker.

Watch your spelling there Ibis. One superfluous letter

And you misquoted SeathrunCeitinn by missing out this...

Quote :

But was de Rossa not unswerving in his support?going as far as supporting a motion ignoring the result before the vote took place?

Quote :

de Rossa was always the thinker.

Don't think we don't notice when you tinker with people's posts...

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

Just because Mary Liou MacDonald said it doesn't make it true and just because she said it doesn't make it the official SF party line. They are anti-EU, for the reasons which ibis so eloquently outlines.

But Mary Lou was the party line, she was the embodiment of SF for this campaign and I don't think you can separate the campaigner from the party in this instance.

Well, Mary Lou is being disingenuous in saying that Sinn Féin is pro-Europe when they have opposed every Treaty which has been agreed by our Government and those of the other member states of the EU. They cannot be pro-Europe and fundamentally disagree with its policies, proposals and development.

Quote :

Quote :

Libertas, otoh, could cut a good deal and deliver their voters in a second referendum for a Yes win.

I'm going to put off until tomorrow night going to see the Incredible Hulk to hear how you explain that one, A-T, le do thoil.

Well, if Cowen meets with Ganley and Cowen agrees to go get a permanent commissioner, a protocol on tax and on neutrality, that would be the, "better deal" Libertas are looking for. In that case, a well-funded, well-organised thorn in the side of the Yes movement would be removed and there would be a sufficient swing to the Yes camp to land a victory in a second referendum.

Apologies firstly about SF - I misread the first line of what you wrote and got carried away by indignation (which I seem to be rather full of this evening) - my fault entirely. Mea culpa.

Will Cowen meet with him? Will Cowen go looking for the commissioner that we were happy to say farewell to with Nice? Did Ganley have anything to say on neutrality?

Those issues you mention are not specifically Libertas issues. They started with taxation and when they realised it was more or less a non-argument they magpied from various different organisations.

I can't agree with you that Libertas were looking for a better deal - if they were, they'd have been able to specifically articulate the characteristics of that deal and in a number of broadcasts in recent days they've singularly failed to do that.

I've been out and about a lot today, and there seem to be two separate and parallel universes. One is on the front pages and in the editorials of newspapers, and in all the places you can find the political class, and the other is on the letters page, in the streets, offices, schools, local radio or wherever else you want to go.

imho the No side were as poorly served as the Yes side were in terms of the organisations who represented them and crazy stuff that was said. The No vote appears to be mainly a statement of lack of trust and belief in National and EU level politicians to abide by the democratic will of citizens and not about minutiae of sub clauses of the Treaty. There is a lot of anger and disgust out there.

Kate P wrote:

Apologies firstly about SF - I misread the first line of what you wrote and got carried away by indignation (which I seem to be rather full of this evening) - my fault entirely. Mea culpa.

Ah, it's grand, we all misread from time to time. I'm quite relaxed, so there'll be no rows with me!

Quote :

Will Cowen meet with him? Will Cowen go looking for the commissioner that we were happy to say farewell to with Nice? Did Ganley have anything to say on neutrality?

Those issues you mention are not specifically Libertas issues. They started with taxation and when they realised it was more or less a non-argument they magpied from various different organisations.

I can't agree with you that Libertas were looking for a better deal - if they were, they'd have been able to specifically articulate the characteristics of that deal and in a number of broadcasts in recent days they've singularly failed to do that.

I know that, but I'm looking at this from a see-saw point of view. The see-saw is 53% leaning towards the No side. In order for the Yes side to prevail, at least one of the major No organisations has to come on the Yes side. Libertas seem to be the most pragmatic of the lot. If they can be persuaded to cross sides, the Yes side fights a much better campaign and the concessions to Libertas widely please, we can get a Yes vote in a second referendum.

The more we find out about the vote, the more interesting it seems to be -
*hardly any women voting Yes
*a lot of young voters out, mainly voting No
*a lot of people voting who did not vote in the General Election
*a very high Poll considering the holiday period had started

The comfort I'm getting out of this is that people were really tuning in to the importance of the EU to their lives and the need to have an impact on it.

Viva las ballot box!

On a numbers basis you're right of course, but that assumes that there is a significant core group of voters with Libertas and I haven't seen or heard any evidence of that.

In fact, I'd say that their tabloid leaflets and provocatively silly billboards (just saw the Mandelson one for the first time today in Clara - Taoiseach country) aim towards one kind of voter - which is not the same kind of voter they were targetting early in their campaign. They should have been the thinking man's No organisation, but they clearly decided that a better strategy was to sow seeds of doubt and fear in those who are susceptible to such arguments.

If there is an organisation out there that has a definite group of supporters, it's Sinn Féin and on the wild offchance that their (equally blurrily articulated) demands are met, it would be fun to see how they'd have to turn their anti-European coat inside out.

I just don't see how Libertas has a core group of supporters big enough to be swayed in that way.

cactus flower wrote:

*a very high Poll considering the holiday period had started.

The rise in turnout is very much a global phenomenon. The US has seen a surge in turnout at the primaries, London saw a rise in turnout at its Mayoral elections, Ireland saw a rise in turnout at last year's GE and more people voted in last year's presidential election in France. Voters are increasingly less apathetic.

Right you are cactus flower.

The spin in the lead story in the Indo today was nauseating - a claim in the opening line that was without a shred of evidence in the piece - claiming that most of us 'mistakenly' thought the treaty could be 'easily' renegotiated. And all based on a press briefing of typical self serving quality from the Commission. Zero info on who did the survey or methodology.

While I am in rant mode, couple of comments on earlier posts -

Libertas is opposed to what is generally meant by neutrality. Ganley favours a common EU defence.

On the Commissioner point, what is the story with knocking people who want to keep one Commissioner per country? Is it based on the point that that principle (after reaching 27) was conceded in Nice? If so it overlooks the fact that the balls are up in the air again now.

Italy just scored again. Hop off you Frogs . Hope Kouchner is watching.

Helium Three while you are here would you explain one thing about the format of the Treaties which has me confused?

I happen to have Decan Ganley's version and it's numbered differently from a version you are using from a thread of yours I was trying to follow on p.ie today regarding the EDA.

What's the story with the versions ?

This one
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35509

Kate P wrote:

On a numbers basis you're right of course, but that assumes that there is a significant core group of voters with Libertas and I haven't seen or heard any evidence of that.

In fact, I'd say that their tabloid leaflets and provocatively silly billboards (just saw the Mandelson one for the first time today in Clara - Taoiseach country) aim towards one kind of voter - which is not the same kind of voter they were targetting early in their campaign. They should have been the thinking man's No organisation, but they clearly decided that a better strategy was to sow seeds of doubt and fear in those who are susceptible to such arguments.

If there is an organisation out there that has a definite group of supporters, it's Sinn Féin and on the wild offchance that their (equally blurrily articulated) demands are met, it would be fun to see how they'd have to turn their anti-European coat inside out.

I just don't see how Libertas has a core group of supporters big enough to be swayed in that way.

As well as providing a more positive critical analysis of Europe, SF's position could also be viewed as preparing the ground for their natural support base who would have been angered by the sudden sartorial eventualities of which you speak.

cactus flower wrote:

And you misquoted SeathrunCeitinn by missing out this...

Quote :

But was de Rossa not unswerving in his support?going as far as supporting a motion ignoring the result before the vote took place?

Quote :

de Rossa was always the thinker.

Don't think we don't notice when you tinker with people's posts...

Dear me! I didn't "misquote". I left out something I'm really not prepared to argue about, and consider a piece of pure political theatre. Those who actually believe it had the meaning it is ascribed have been duped, and those who know it didn't but claim it anyway are those doing the duping - and that's my only comment on the subject.

I'm not putting any particular meaning on that vote with regard to de Rossa - although it does seem prescient in terms of much of the reaction in the European Parliament.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Helium Three while you are here would you explain one thing about the format of the Treaties which has me confused?

I happen to have Decan Ganley's version and it's numbered differently from a version you are using from a thread of yours I was trying to follow on p.ie today regarding the EDA.

What's the story with the versions ?

This one
[url=http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35509

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35509[/quote[/url]]

Sure thing.

The confusion springs from repeated renumbering by the powers that (would) be up to the very last minute when the treaty was adopted. The version you ascribe to Ganley (I have not seen his version) sounds like it has the second last numeration system.

I stick with the final system, as used also by Peadar O Broin in his magnum opus, the annotated and consolidated version on the ibec website. My slightly used hard copy cost me €125 and is now rocketing in value as we speak...

Helium Three wrote:

I stick with the final system, as used also by Peadar O Broin in his magnum opus, the annotated and consolidated version on the ibec website. My slightly used hard copy cost me €125 and is now rocketing in value as we speak...

€125? Is that how much it costs? We'd break the bank if we nominated that for our MN Book Club.