Cowen links economic difficulty to Lisbon rejection

Oiche_mhaith

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0915/breaking38.htm

I think this is pure codswollop, but would be interested to know what others think. Are we in an economic mess because we voted no in Lisborn? is there any connect between the two?

molloyjh

Oiche_mhaith wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0915/breaking38.htm

I think this is pure codswollop, but would be interested to know what others think. Are we in an economic mess because we voted no in Lisborn? is there any connect between the two?

What he actually said was:

“We failed to address some people’s genuinely held concerns and we failed to get the message through that a rejection of the Treaty could exacerbate the already tough economic situation we find ourselves in,”

In other words it could, not would, make things worse. He never said Lisbon was the cause. More sensationalist media coverage where the truth is buried in there somewhere towards the end but misleads at the start.

I think the general point is that the other member states of the EU are now less likely to go out of their way for us then if we had voted Yes, which would only serve to make matters worse. This is the reality of politics regardless of how right or wrong it may be.

Breezer

He's unnecessarily linking the issues though. The majority of the people are currently against Lisbon, have shown themselves to be capable of getting rather offended at what they perceive to be scaremongering, and Cowen's hinting is doing nothing to help. As the leader of this country, he should be well aware of how the media can pick up on things and skew people's opinions, and quite frankly he should have a bit more political savvy.

“We failed to address some people’s genuinely held concerns and we failed to get the message through that a rejection of the Treaty could exacerbate the already tough economic situation we find ourselves in,”

They are still failing to get that message through. Instead they wheel out Dick Roche onto RTE Radio today to sling mud at Declan Ganley about his 'questionable business activities.' Having listened to the entire debate between the two, I am still none the wiser as to what these activities were/are, since all Roche did was call Ganley names like a schoolchild.

Is it really too much to ask that if this Government wants to put some form of Lisbon back on the table (as I believe it should), that Ministers actually discuss the content of the Treaty?

Oiche_mhaith

molloyjh wrote: »

What he actually said was:



In other words it could, not would, make things worse. He never said Lisbon was the cause. More sensationalist media coverage where the truth is buried in there somewhere towards the end but misleads at the start.
.

Yes but it is still a threat, 'could' is only slighly lighter then 'would'. I've got to agree with breezer, none of the campaign on either side dealt with what was actually in the treaty, it dealt with the repercussions
for the country if we did / didn't vote yes / no. They seemed to treat the public with kid gloves and a 'it's too complicated for you to understand just vote yes or we could be in trouble' attitude....

Couple of things that would be nice

-focus on content
-treat the public in a mature manner
-don't work of soundbites.

sink

Oiche_mhaith wrote: »

Yes but it is still a threat, 'could' is only slighly lighter then 'would'. I've got to agree with breezer, none of the campaign on either side dealt with what was actually in the treaty, it dealt with the repercussions
for the country if we did / didn't vote yes / no. They seemed to treat the public with kid gloves and a 'it's too complicated for you to understand just vote yes or we could be in trouble' attitude....

Couple of things that would be nice

-focus on content
-treat the public in a mature manner
-don't work of soundbites.

'Would' is definite i.e it is definitely going to affect it.

'Could' is a possibility i.e. it possibly will affect it.

The two are very different.

The rest I agree with.

djpbarry

Oiche_mhaith wrote: »

don't work of soundbites.

Is that not precisely what you have based this thread on?

Breezer

Oiche_mhaith wrote: »

Yes but it is still a threat, 'could' is only slighly lighter then 'would'. I've got to agree with breezer, none of the campaign on either side dealt with what was actually in the treaty,

Well I'd actually beg to differ on that one, but it's irrelevant at this stage who said what, the campaign is over. Unless of course lessons are learned from it and a focused campaign is put in place from all sides to make sure people are informed about whatever deal ends up back on the table. Doesn't look like this'll be coming from FF though.

Oiche_mhaith

sink wrote: »

'Would' is definite i.e it is definitely going to affect it.

'Could' is a possibility i.e. it possibly will affect it.

The two are very different.

The rest I agree with.

Would if I could but I can't ... is that a definite? depends on context.... lol

Oiche_mhaith

djpbarry wrote: »

Is that not precisely what you have based this thread on?

exactly

molloyjh

Oiche_mhaith wrote: »

Yes but it is still a threat, 'could' is only slighly lighter then 'would'. I've got to agree with breezer, none of the campaign on either side dealt with what was actually in the treaty, it dealt with the repercussions
for the country if we did / didn't vote yes / no. They seemed to treat the public with kid gloves and a 'it's too complicated for you to understand just vote yes or we could be in trouble' attitude....

Couple of things that would be nice

-focus on content
-treat the public in a mature manner
-don't work of soundbites.

First I completely agree with you re the campaign.

Second, however, is that I think Cowen is right to say what he did. It IS quite possible that this No vote could serve to add to our woes economically. It isn't scaremongering or threatening, just informed opinion. If he were to avoid talking about it he'd be as guilty of the kids gloves thing you're talking about all over again.

Breezer

molloyjh wrote: »

Second, however, is that I think Cowen is right to say what he did. It IS quite possible that this No vote could serve to add to our woes economically. It isn't scaremongering or threatening, just informed opinion.

I don't disagree with the content of what he said, nor do I disagree with what you said above. But with anti-Lisbon feeling still running rampant, as is evident even by looking at this forum, he needs to be choosing his words very carefully at the moment if he's to have any hope of getting some form of Lisbon agreement passed. Ridiculous? Yes, but necessary.

leninbenjamin

Breezer wrote: »

He's unnecessarily linking the issues though

sorry, but no he's not. our economy is heavily linked to that of the rest of Europe. thus any decision we make about our relations with Europe will have some sort of impact on the economy.

and yes, it really is that simple.

Breezer

leninbenjamin wrote: »

sorry, but no he's not. our economy is heavily linked to that of the rest of Europe. thus any decision we make about our relations with Europe will have some sort of impact on the economy.

Of course it is. But people will interpret this (they have done) as more scaremongering and further use of negative tactics by the Government in an effort to get Lisbon passed. Rightly or wrongly, that is how people interpret any mention of the words "Lisbon Treaty" alongside the mention of any negative reaction from Europe. I am not saying that what Cowen said was wrong, I am merely saying that, given public opinion, it was unnecessary and unhelpful.

and yes, it really is that simple.

Do not patronise me please.

is_that_so

sink wrote: »

'Would' is definite i.e it is definitely going to affect it.

'Could' is a possibility i.e. it possibly will affect it.

The two are very different.

Actually both are very similar and neither refers to any definite results. Both are what are known as modal verbs and describe modality or the level of reality ascribed to a set of signs.

They are also the type of thing that is dependent on the speaker's interpretation of a situation. We also need to assume that the speaker is in fact conveying the interpretation they wish and not just using a personally familiar expression.

Could is used here to describe possibility and would in this type of example suggests the potential result of a given set of circumstances, i.e. it could conceivably satisfy the condition, based on the speaker's train of logic.

On the question itself well I don't know if he is right but it is one possible outcome that does not necessarily suggest that the Government is threatening us with anything. Even so he is a politician and he was talking to his own people.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said today it was “increasingly obvious” to him that the current economic difficulties and the political dilemma posed by the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty were linked

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0915/breaking38.htm


Cowen made the link himself. He thinks or wants people to think that its linked.

miju

I don't like these comments at all. These comments are purely to designed mislead and scare the majority of people who largely rejected the Lisbon treaty into voting the other way.

Whatever about what he says publicly he surely must know privately he's talking out of his arse.

oscarBravo

Seems to me it's a lose-lose situation. If Cowen believes that our failure to ratify Lisbon is contributing to uncertainty in a difficult economic climate, what should he say publicly? We've seen that if he says how he feels, he's immediately slated for scaremongering. If he keeps his mouth shut, and the situation continues to deteriorate, he'll be denounced for failing to show leadership.

What should he say? What can he say, that won't be pounced on as "bullying" by a hyper-sensitive section of the "no" camp?

Breezer

oscarBravo wrote: »

What should he say? What can he say, that won't be pounced on as "bullying" by a hyper-sensitive section of the "no" camp?

I agree it's a Catch 22. The "bullying" idea is completely ridiculous and he shouldn't have to contend with it, but unfortunately he does.

My opinion is that he should leave the Lisbon Treaty well alone (in public) for the moment, until concrete plans are drawn up as regards what agreement exactly is being put on the table, and how exactly the Government is going to campaign for it. There's no point in potentially fanning flames when there's nothing to campaign for at the moment anyway: he can't possibly win.

Of course, had the Government reacted quicker to dispel the myths being spread by the same crowd that are now being subjected to this "bullying," instead of concentrating on holding up tribunals and speculating on one-horse leadership elections, Cowen might not now be in this mess.

miju

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said today it was “increasingly obvious” to him that the current economic difficulties and the political dilemma posed by the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty were linked

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0915/breaking38.htm

miju wrote: »

I don't like these comments at all. These comments are purely to designed mislead and scare the majority of people who largely rejected the Lisbon treaty into voting the other way.

Whatever about what he says publicly he surely must know privately he's talking out of his arse.

he is trying to put the blame for the downturn elsewhere while attempting to swing people into voting a certain way.

Let nobody be fooled, except the party hacks, into thinking any of this was a suprise. We have threads full of facts and figures to show what was coming e.g

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055097379
or
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055162526

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Cowen made the link himself. He thinks or wants people to think that its linked.

What he actually said was:

Biffo wrote:

We failed to address some people’s genuinely held concerns and we failed to get the message through that a rejection of the Treaty could exacerbate the already tough economic situation we find ourselves in.

I don't see anything terribly wrong with that statement.

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

What he actually said was:
I don't see anything terribly wrong with that statement.

Damn, you mean he was misquoted and the soundbyte is wrong?

Where did I see that before?