LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshow so? stance on abortion all over the place, agreed that we have a veto regards to tax etcOriginally Posted by Common_sense
how so? stance on abortion all over the place, agreed that we have a veto regards to tax etc
Im voting yes but I dont think Ganley was badly beaten- for those who are not aware of the detail they would not realise that he was wrong on every issue he spoke about
[color=#008000]From what INTELLIGENCE has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100.[/color][color=#FF0000] 9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's... [/color][color=#008000] Yes, 91,100.[/color]
No they didn't. The programme runs for 21 minutes every time.
Ganley's lies were caught out on tax, CCCTB, Article 48 and especially on abortion where said one thing and was then caught to have said the exact opposite in a Mayo newspaper. As usual Libertas seems to change its stance by the day.
[color=#FF0000](Guys, when I type in capitals it isn't shouting. I have technical problems which makes using italics difficult. Please don't take offence if you see capitals used!) [/color]
[quote=libertarian-right]how so? stance on abortion all over the place, agreed that we have a veto regards to tax etc[/quote:315e11ex]
The veto on tax is ineffective because of Article 93 which will allow the ECJ to rule that our corporate-taxation is a "distortion of competition". The veto cannot stop Enhanced Cooperation being used to proceed with destination-taxes/CCCTB which - while not officially including Ireland - would result in Irish-based companies and multinationals operating out of Ireland being taxed on their sales in the participating member states. Barroso and Kovacs have made clear the Irish veto can't stop CCCTB.
Wrong because you have to look at the fine-print as Ganley did. He won.
Ganley I thought on points. Ganley displayed passion and fluency wheras Suds was a bit lethargic and too laid back. Ganley stumbled through the swerve ball alright but won on the specifics and pure passion. Suds performance certainly would not inspire Yes people.
Ganley did very well in Part I - by the far the best I have seen of him - but as regards Part II - even his most ferverent supporters would have to admit he was handed his pants by Sutherland.
Regardless - let the spinning begin
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.(P.J. O'Rourke)
"until they cut the programme early because Ganley was wining."
strange i always thought it was that long - nothing like a conspiracy theory on the no side huh
[color=#008000]From what INTELLIGENCE has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100.[/color][color=#FF0000] 9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's... [/color][color=#008000] Yes, 91,100.[/color]
i agree that the common voter would see that without any knowledge of the treaty
Wow i'm surprised that the No side haven't come out with "I cannot categorically rule out that a Flying Spaghetti Monster will not be created to feed on the souls of Yes voters if this Treaty is passed".
Holy ************************ but the amount of creative bull************************ i've heard by the No side is gobsmacking
incorrect FT, the distortion of competition phrase refers to indirect tax; corporation tax is a direct tax.
And the taxation of Irish companies in the EU cannot be changed without a renegotiation of Ireland's double tax treaties.
Did Ganley make those points on corporation tax? Because they have been soundly debunked on dozens of threads here.
