TV3 Ganley-Sutherland debate now

[Bobert]

That interview on a host of areas may well come back to haunt Ganley. He certainly ended up with egg on his face over abortion. Not taken a stance on it? What does raising an issue that lawyers universally say has nothing to do with treaty amount to, if not taking an issue? He raised the issue by entering into the abortion debate, then tried to claim that he hadn't, only to get badly bitten on the backside by his own quote.

Oh dear!

Sutherland made mince meat of him.

Libertas used abortion as an example, they could have used prostitution, cannabis legalisation or euthanasia. But they did not take a stance.

Yeah right. Funny how they just happened to pick abortion, an emotive issue for hundreds of thousands of voters. It is like when Jens Peter Bonde at the forum decided to throw out an issue, "say abortion" and had even Sinn Feiners groan and put their heads in their hands. (Then Bonde, when met with fury, reacted with total feigned innocence suggesting that he just happened to use abortion because it was the first a-word that came to his mind. Ganley, Bonde and others on the No side (including quite a few on this site) are using abortion as a 'mindf*ck' to freak the bejaysus out of old grannies and parish priests in the hope of setting a firestorm of fear off in rural Ireland, with priests on the altar saying 'you must vote against this to protect unborn babies' and rags like The Irish Family and Alive pushing this myth. Even the Irish Catholic has tried to get in on the act a month ago.

Ganley claimed his campaign would be about 'facts not politics'. My arse. His campaign is all about 'fear not facts'. Next thing he will be claiming is that as the California Supreme Court has just legalised gay marriage, that will mean the ECJ will do the same. He is clutching at straws.

I'm very confident that the majority of No voters believe in the right of abortion. But this is not a thread on abortion.

It seems that the general consensus amongst yes voters is to discredit the opposition be they Shinners, Coir or Libertas. Now, why don't the yes side get up, debate the contents of this treaty and leave the politics at the door?

[evercloserunion]

The debate this thread is about is a perfect example of the Yes side tackling the No side on the facts and issues, and tearing them apart.

[baldur0300]

I'm very confident that the majority of No voters believe in the right of abortion. But this is not a thread on abortion.

It seems that the general consensus amongst yes voters is to discredit the opposition be they Shinners, Coir or Libertas. Now, why don't the yes side get up, debate the contents of this treaty and leave the politics at the door?

The decision to bring abortion into the discussion was made by Libertas and thus they deserve every pot shot.

[ibis]

It seems that the general consensus amongst yes voters is to discredit the opposition be they Shinners, Coir or Libertas. Now, why don't the yes side get up, debate the contents of this treaty and leave the politics at the door?

Perhaps because the debate largely centres on credibility - particularly for those who will make up their minds, not on the basis of the Treaty, but on the basis of who they believe, and who are probably in the majority. If you had to answer ten factual multiple choice questions before you voted, there'd be a lot more discussion of the Treaty - but it doesn't work that way.

We have a neutral body - the Referendum Commission - and the No side are attacking its credibility, because it doesn't back up many of their arguments.

[Bobert]

The debate this thread is about is a perfect example of the Yes side tackling the No side on the facts and issues, and tearing them apart.

No sir, it is an example of the Yes side attacking Libertas. And I don't think anyone has been torn apart.

I'm very confident that the majority of No voters believe in the right of abortion. But this is not a thread on abortion.

It seems that the general consensus amongst yes voters is to discredit the opposition be they Shinners, Coir or Libertas. Now, why don't the yes side get up, debate the contents of this treaty and leave the politics at the door?

The decision to bring abortion into the discussion was made by Libertas and thus they deserve every pot shot.

Libertas were not the first ones to mention abortion I think you'll find. I believe it was some spin off of the SWP...

But what is happening is that the Yes side (YOU) are attacking a group over a ************************************g example they used when discussing the ECJ's new Jurisdictions. Now, does anyone want to discuss those are are we stuck in a political soap opera?

It seems that the general consensus amongst yes voters is to discredit the opposition be they Shinners, Coir or Libertas. Now, why don't the yes side get up, debate the contents of this treaty and leave the politics at the door?

Perhaps because the debate largely centres on credibility - particularly for those who will make up their minds, not on the basis of the Treaty, but on the basis of who they believe, and who are probably in the majority. If you had to answer ten factual multiple choice questions before you voted, there'd be a lot more discussion of the Treaty - but it doesn't work that way.

We have a neutral body - the Referendum Commission - and the No side are attacking its credibility, because it doesn't back up many of their arguments.

Ibis you've made me so happy. I don't think we've debated in a while.

You want to talk about credibility?

Cowan has not read the end result of his negotiations.

DeRossa took a stance against the country.

Bertie Ahern had to resign in disgrace.

Enda Kenny will surrender to anyone who says their product is good for the country.

And I don't have to answer ten multiple choice questions. So that point is irrelevant.

[evercloserunion]

No sir, it is an example of the Yes side attacking Libertas.

I don't recall Peter Sutherland ever sidestepping the question and attacking Libertas instead. At all times throughout the debate both sides managed to stay on the issue and discuss the facts.

And I don't think anyone has been torn apart.

That's because you're on the side that got torn apart.

[corkman2007]

That interview on a host of areas may well come back to haunt Ganley. He certainly ended up with egg on his face over abortion. Not taken a stance on it? What does raising an issue that lawyers universally say has nothing to do with treaty amount to, if not taking an issue? He raised the issue by entering into the abortion debate, then tried to claim that he hadn't, only to get badly bitten on the backside by his own quote.

Oh dear!

Sutherland made mince meat of him.

Libertas used abortion as an example, they could have used prostitution, cannabis legalisation or euthanasia. But they did not take a stance.

Libertas have attempted to scaremonger on abortion. These are the words from a leaflet they published and distributed:

"LISBON will guarantee Ireland's position on abortion" The European Courts can decide what a human right is. And they can decide whether Abortion is a "service" falling under the "free movement of services" directive. That sound like a guarantee to you?

The only 'European Courts' that can rule on EU directives are of course the EU courts, so these must be the courts referred to.

There's a scan of the leaflet here: viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34175

If Libertas want to debate the contents of the treaty, which make it clear the Ireland's constitutional position can't be affected by anything in the EU treaties (and therefore by ECJ rulings), then I'm sure the 'Yes' side will be quite willing to respond.

However, if they're going to resort to cheap lies on one issue then they should expect to be pulled up on those lies and, as importantly, they should expect to have their credibility on any issue challenged.

If they can lie about this, what else can they lie about? Corporate taxation, the 'abolition' of vetoes on the WTO talks ("Mr. Nunn said that while a veto is retained in a number of small areas under article 188c, future WTO deals would not be amongst them." A blatant lie: see the WTO veto thread), Article 48?

Libertas' campaign has been riddled with lies, distortions and half-truths. It's been about as far from 'facts, not politics' as it could possibly get.

[Rocky]

Libertas were not the first ones to mention abortion I think you'll find. I believe it was some spin off of the SWP...

But what is happening is that the Yes side (YOU) are attacking a group over a ********* ********* example they used when discussing the ECJ's new Jurisdictions. Now, does anyone want to discuss those are are we stuck in a political soap opera?

Libertas choose to have that piece in the local paper in Mayo. Listening to Ganley tonight, it was clear tonight he knew it was nonsense and that he had lied and Hannigan was right to call him on it.

[baldur0300]

Libertas were not the first ones to mention abortion I think you'll find. I believe it was some spin off of the SWP...

But what is happening is that the Yes side (YOU) are attacking a group over a ********* ********* example they used when discussing the ECJ's new Jurisdictions. Now, does anyone want to discuss those are are we stuck in a political soap opera?

Libertas have brought up the abortion issue on several occasions. They have adopted it as their own and will get a kicking from people like myself for doing so. I say so unapologetically. It was specifically chosen because it is the most emotive issue in this nation. You are highly naive if you think otherwise.

[ibis]

The decision to bring abortion into the discussion was made by Libertas and thus they deserve every pot shot.

Libertas were not the first ones to mention abortion I think you'll find. I believe it was some spin off of the SWP...

Hmm. This is a quote from the Libertas leaflet I got sometime back in earlyish April - from the "Fianna Fail on Lisbon - and why they're wrong" points:

""LISBON WILL guarantee Ireland's position on abortion"
The European Courts can decide what a human right is. And they can decide whether Abortion (sic) is a "service" falling under the "free movement of services" directive. That sound like a guarantee to you?"

If you don't believe that's an accurate quote, I'll scan it for you: