Attitude of the yes campaign

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

If your motivation is malign it is simple to misconstrue even the most straightforward of issues. This is a challenge to the yes campaign but a deliberate policy of calling the 'no' campaigners liars I think will backfire. It is now another negative message. The positive messages need to come accross clearer.

When someone says the minimum wage will drop to €1.84 what can I say other than "no it won't" and offer the proof? Should I play along or something?

eightyfish

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Me, I'd prefer to stay in Ireland and live in Europe.
I do not say that merely as a weak effort at a witticism: the EU is us, along with the people of 26 other states.

That was kind of my point. Maybe not very clear .

eightyfish

rumour wrote: »

Who conducted the European Commission Investigation? I thought the Irsih Government went to Europe with its own findings

The survey was conducted by Gallup, a polling agency, on behalf of the EU. Results are here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

eightyfish wrote: »

The survey was conducted by Gallup, a polling agency, on behalf of the EU. Results are here.

Actually there was one by Millward Brown for the Irish Government, and one by Gallup for the EU.

Rumours conspiracy has just grown wider.

So now we have the Irish government and Millward Brown fixing a poll to satisfy the EU, who have fixed their own poll to satisfy who exactly? The illuminati?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry I'm lost. This is the scenario as I see it

1. Ireland votes no
2. Cowen finds out why
3. Takes those reasons to the EU and gets them addressed
4. Asks people if their minds have changed
5. Enough people have had their fears settled to vote yes

Where yours seems to be

1. Ireland votes no
2. Cowen knows that it's because the people have objections to specific articles but instead of trying to renegotiate them he engineers a survey that says we voted no for non-treaty related reasons
3. He takes this engineered survey to the EU and gets these non-issues addressed
4. Asks people if their minds have changed
5. Of course their minds haven't changed, he didn't address their actual issues.
6. An even more overwhelming no

It doesn't make any sense to me. Also, could you tell me which parts of the treaty you would have liked changed?

Yes and my hypothesis seems to be playing out, whereas yours is not!!!:rolleyes:

He went off to europe with typically non contentious traditional irish problems that europe would address. I just think it so strange that a survey conducted in modern Ireland could come up with findings that are so a typical of a completely different era in Ireland. Maaybe they're from some time warped village in Offaly.

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually there was one by Millward Brown for the Irish Government, and one by Gallup for the EU.

Rumours conspiracy has just grown wider.

So now we have the Irish government and Millward Brown fixing a poll to satisfy the EU, who have fixed their own poll to satisfy who exactly? The illuminati?

Lol, its a politically expedient poll. Unfortunately explorer is crashing on me when I open the link. Anybody any suggestions?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Yes and my hypothesis seems to be playing out, whereas yours is not!!!:rolleyes:

Your hypothesis is playing out because people don't believe the guarantees are guarantees! Also people keep saying that their issues weren't addressed but no one is able to tell me what those issues are. They're just afraid of the treaty and they want it to go away. It's one thing for it to be voted down again because people don't believe in the guarantees but you're saying Cowen deliberately set out to do this. Why would he do that? Please tell me What he would have to gain?

And again, since you're saying your issues weren't addressed, could you please tell me what those issues are? bullet points will do

rumour wrote: »

He went off to europe with typically non contentious traditional irish problems that europe would address. I just think it so strange that a survey conducted in modern Ireland could come up with findings that are so a typical of a completely different era in Ireland. Maaybe they're from some time warped village in Offaly.

Now we have two separate surveys coming up with pretty much the same results. Maybe Ireland is still living in that time warped village.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When someone says the minimum wage will drop to €1.84 what can I say other than "no it won't" and offer the proof? Should I play along or something?

I wouldn't get cought saying no it won't, but where the minimum wage goes is determined by our economic prediciment. I think it has to come down and Lisbon has nothing to do with that.

What about 95% of Europe would reject this treaty?

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

Lol, its a politically expedient poll. Unfortunately explorer is crashing on me when I open the link. Anybody any suggestions?

You do realise that you are actually accusing two separate and well respected polling companies, who make their living based on their honest polls, of corruption right?

Once you know that is what you are actually saying carry on...

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Lol, its a politically expedient poll. Unfortunately explorer is crashing on me when I open the link. Anybody any suggestions?

I posted a broken link. Fixed it now

If it is still crashing then just right click on the link and save it locally as it is a pdf.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

What about 95% of Europe would reject this treaty?

That's a quote from Charlie McCreevy presenting his opinion.

If Charlie McCreevy told you to vote yes, would you?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I wouldn't get cought saying no it won't, but where the minimum wage goes is determined by our economic prediciment. I think it has to come down and Lisbon has nothing to do with that.

Coir are saying it will go down to €1.84 and that Lisbon will cause it. Are you telling me that if I say that's not true it will damage the yes campaign? Are you seriously saying we should just allow the no campaign to spread their lies because we just get called arrogant for calling them lies? Does the fact that they are lies not matter at all?

rumour wrote: »

What about 95% of Europe would reject this treaty?

They probably would and this is why I said earlier that I would prefer if this wasn't put to a referendum. It's too open to abuse from extremists as you and I both know. In other countries it would get rejected out of fear and not because the treaty itself is bad, just like in Ireland

edit:also the quote (misquoted on the posters) is that 95% of European nations would reject it, ie >50% of the people in those countries would. He didn't say 95% of the population of Europe would reject it

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your hypothesis is playing out because people don't believe the guarantees are guarantees! Also people keep saying that their issues weren't addressed but no one is able to tell me what those issues are. They're just afraid of the treaty and they want it to go away. It's one thing for it to be voted down again because people don't believe in the guarantees but you're saying Cowen deliberately set out to do this. Why would he do that? Please tell me What he would have to gain?

And again, since you're saying your issues weren't addressed, could you please tell me what those issues are? bullet points will do


Now we have two separate surveys coming up with pretty much the same results. Maybe Ireland is still living in that time warped village.

One issue that I have, is it right that Ireland's electorate has a deciding vote on a treaty applies to 26 other countries when the electorate of those countries do not have the opportunity to vote. It was tried in France and Holland and since it was rejected there it appears a decision has been taken not to trouble the electorate with these problems. Who made that decision and should a treaty that is intended to form part of a constitution not morally be put to all the people of europe. Should we not stand up for that democratic ideal in solidarity with the people of europe. We have an opportunity to get some good out of this treaty. Every opposition party in Europe would latch onto that for mileage.
At the very least thats the excuse I would be preparing!!! Let Sarkozy and Merkel deal with that problem without bending the rules and digging themselves deeper into a hole, thus clearing up our image and even Cowens.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

One issue that I have, is it right that Ireland's electorate has a deciding vote on a treaty applies to 26 other countries when the electorate of those countries do not have the opportunity to vote. It was tried in France and Holland and since it was rejected there it appears a decision has been taken not to trouble the electorate with these problems. Who made that decision and should a treaty that is intended to form part of a constitution not morally be put to all the people of europe. Should we not stand up for that democratic ideal in solidarity with the people of europe. We have an opportunity to get some good out of this treaty. Every opposition party in Europe would latch onto that for mileage.
At the very least thats the excuse I would be preparing!!! Let Sarkozy and Merkel deal with that problem without bending the rules and digging themselves deeper into a hole, thus clearing up our image and even Cowens.

One more time, with feeling.

IT'S. NONE. OF. YOUR. F*CKING. BUSINESS. HOW. OTHER. COUNTRIES. ARE. INTERNALLY. RUN. JUST. LIKE. IT'S. NONE. OF. F*CKING. THEIRS. HOW. IRELAND. IS. RUN.

You really must be out of ideas if you fall back on this tired old 'argument'...

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Coir are saying it will go down to €1.84 and that Lisbon will cause it. Are you telling me that if I say that's not true it will damage the yes campaign? Are you seriously saying we should just allow the no campaign to spread their lies because we just get called arrogant for calling them lies? Does the fact that they are lies not matter at all?


They probably would and this is why I said earlier that I would prefer if this wasn't put to a referendum. It's too open to abuse from extremists as you and I both know. In other countries it would get rejected out of fear and not because the treaty itself is bad, just like in Ireland

edit:also the quote (misquoted on the posters) is that 95% of European nations would reject it, ie >50% of the people in those countries would. He didn't say 95% of the population of Europe would reject it

Ouch!!!!! easy tiger, I'm not an advocate of COIR. But the minimum wage will have to come down, can't see it going to 1.84 just yet but who knows?

As for the quote I just read it off a poster on on a lamppost from the window and it says 95% of europeans, but we are already lost in pedantics.

Regarding fear, this is how the whole thing has been mismanged. The French and Germans as leading advocates have to take responsibility on this front. I wonder when that little weasel Sarkozy will be responsible for anything apart from enforcing press blackouts.

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You do realise that you are actually accusing two separate and well respected polling companies, who make their living based on their honest polls, of corruption right?

Once you know that is what you are actually saying carry on...

That is what you believe I am actually saying.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

That is what you believe I am actually saying.

How do you fix a poll (as you are alleging) without corruption on behalf of the pollster?

Square that circle for me...

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit:also the quote (misquoted on the posters) is that 95% of European nations would reject it, ie >50% of the people in those countries would. He didn't say 95% of the population of Europe would reject it

Interesting.

95% of 27 countries would be 1.35 countries accepting the treaty. Nice work McCreevy.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

One issue that I have, is it right that Ireland's electorate has a deciding vote on a treaty applies to 26 other countries when the electorate of those countries do not have the opportunity to vote. It was tried in France and Holland and since it was rejected there it appears a decision has been taken not to trouble the electorate with these problems. Who made that decision and should a treaty that is intended to form part of a constitution not morally be put to all the people of europe. Should we not stand up for that democratic ideal in solidarity with the people of europe.

1. The ratification of treaties is a national competence which the EU has no control over. They can't make these other countries have referendums any more than they can make us not have one. Making the ratification of treaties an EU wide issue would be quite dangerous because Ireland is very much the exception here
2. Those other countries do not have a history of referendums like we do. They seem quite happy for this to be one more of the millions of issues that their governments decide for them as evidenced by the distinct lack of EU wide protests. It's how representative democracy works. PopeBuckfastXVI will I'm sure point you to his post that shows that the other EU countries have had referendums 18% of the times they could have (those figures include Ireland iirc). Not having a referendum is neither devious nor unusual. It's standard practice in those countries.
3. Their ratification procedure is none of our business. It's mostly the people who object to the will of other EU countries being forced on Ireland who want to force this particular Irish value on them, which is quite ironic imo
4. As well as not valuing referendums like we do, other EU countries are even against them. In Germany and the Netherlands binding referendums are illegal. Mostly it's for the same reason I don't want this treaty put to a referendum, it's far too easy for extremists to spin an elaborate web of lies and scare people into rejecting it, as happened in Ireland and as is happening again. I think issues like this are best left to professionals and it seems the rest of Europe agrees
5. And lastly I would point out that that is not an article of the treaty to be renegotiated. Do you have anything from the treaty that you object to?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Ouch!!!!! easy tiger, I'm not an advocate of COIR. But the minimum wage will have to come down, can't see it going to 1.84 just yet but who knows?

As for the quote I just read it off a poster on on a lamppost from the window and it says 95% of europeans, but we are already lost in pedantics.

Regarding fear, this is how the whole thing has been mismanged. The French and Germans as leading advocates have to take responsibility on this front. I wonder when that little weasel Sarkozy will be responsible for anything apart from enforcing press blackouts.

I'm asking you why you think it is inappropriate to respond to a lie with the response "that is a lie". What should be done in your opinion?

meglome

rumour wrote: »

Ouch!!!!! easy tiger, I'm not an advocate of COIR. But the minimum wage will have to come down, can't see it going to 1.84 just yet but who knows?

And yet you just stuck the question mark on the end of your statement to pretend it's a question, just like Cóir?

(See I just did it there too, I'm really just asking a question honestly)

meglome

eightyfish wrote: »

Interesting.

95% of 27 countries would be 1.35 countries accepting the treaty. Nice work McCreevy.

Stupid thing to say but some truth in it if the Irish experience is anything to go by. Every crazy with an axe to grind would crawl out of the woodwork.

Sam Vimes

I love your sig meglome

meglome

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I love your sig meglome

Well I enjoyed what you had to say. I'm really really sick of the whiny bull**** from the No side. Everyone is out to get them and everyone even the referendum commission is against them. And in fairness to me I came in here as a potential No voter who didn't actually vote in Lisbon 1 but there are only so many lies I could listen to.

Sam Vimes

meglome wrote: »

Well I enjoyed what you had to say. I'm really really sick of the whiny bull**** from the No side. Everyone is out to get them and everyone even the referendum commission is against them.

It's gas isn't it? Fianna Fail are trying to trick them, as are Fine Gael, Labour, the Greens, the referendum commission, IBEC, Michael O'Leary, Packie Bonner, even Eamonn Dunphy now. Two indepent surveys run by separate private companies were deliberately skewed and the EU is of course trying to steal our democrary and our fish.

It seems like everyone is lying except the special interest groups and extremists who have found an excuse to be against every treaty since Ireland joined the EU. They're the only ones we can trust apparently

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It seems like everyone is lying except the special interest groups and extremists who have found an excuse to be against every treaty since Ireland joined the EU. They're the only ones we can trust apparently

That post is going in to my sig

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How do you fix a poll (as you are alleging) without corruption on behalf of the pollster?

Square that circle for me...

Indeed, shame on me for even contemplating that anything in Ireland could be manipulated or corrupted. Ten years of tribunals with not one criminal conviction must surely demonstrate that Charlie Haughey was well within his rights to walk into banks and demand money. So with no fear of prosecution and ten times more money awash in the country our politicians overnight became model citizens of integrity setting the example for the rest of us. Absolutely preposterous indeed that my twisted little mind would consider that a poll could be organised to suit the desired outcome.

For example if we accepted the result of the last referendum we would not be having this discussion however because a certain political group did not like the result we had a poll that guess what concluded that the people didn't vote on Lisbon at all. How convenient, but it simply arises entirely because you will not accept the result of the last referendum.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

Indeed, shame on me for even contemplating that anything in Ireland could be manipulated or corrupted. Ten years of tribunals with not one criminal conviction must surely demonstrate that Charlie Haughey was well within his rights to walk into banks and demand money. So with no fear of prosecution and ten times more money awash in the country our politicians overnight became model citizens of integrity setting the example for the rest of us. Absolutely preposterous indeed that my twisted little mind would consider that a poll could be organised to suit the desired outcome.

For example if we accepted the result of the last referendum we would not be having this discussion however because a certain political group did not like the result we had a poll that guess what concluded that the people didn't vote on Lisbon at all. How convenient, but it simply arises entirely because you will not accept the result of the last referendum.

OK so you are alleging corruption on the part of Millward-Brown and Gallup.

Fine.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's gas isn't it? Fianna Fail are trying to trick them, as are Fine Gael, Labour, the Greens, the referendum commission, IBEC, Michael O'Leary, Packie Bonner, even Eamonn Dunphy now. Two indepent surveys run by separate private companies were deliberately skewed and the EU is of course trying to steal our democrary and our fish.

It seems like everyone is lying except the special interest groups and extremists who have found an excuse to be against every treaty since Ireland joined the EU. They're the only ones we can trust apparently

And yet the majority of people in this country don't believe you, no matter what you say. This is democratic legitimacy in action. This has been covered earlier in this thread by some astute observers, but they were shouted down by the usual dictators.

So now you reap what you sow. The failure of the yes campaign is entirely down to the incompetence of the yes side. Stop looking for scape goats everywhere to hide you inabilities.

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

OK so you are alleging corruption on the part of Millward-Brown and Gallup.

Fine.

Where did I make that allegation?