Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Attitude of the yes campaign
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I was referring only to RandomName2's "Vote Yes or You'll **** up the Economy." comment because that's not what the poster says.
On the article:
So is Cowen scaremongering by suggesting that investment by big business in Ireland would be made more difficult to attract by a no vote or is he simply passing on the views of the businesses themselves?
The poster campaign might not be explicit but the implication has been endorsed by our great leader himself. That was my point and I recall I used the same argument in a previous post albeit tongue in cheek.
On a personal note having worked for various "big Business" entities that outsourced their operations to Ireland and elsewhere I don't take what they say seriously. We have had inward investment that boosted jobs temporarily and then they move on. I would much rather see the effort and money be directed towards indigenous business development.
A no vote may discourage some companies from setting up shop here but is that really a bad thing?
Anyway the treaty is about the adminstration of Europe, not Ireland so an EU without this treaty should be no worse or better in business terms. There is not much in the Treaty itself that would encourage big business to set up anywhere in Europe. Big Business always goes to where it is cheapest and most efficient to operate. It only cares about politics if politicians are going to cost them money.
The real nub of the "big business" issue is the corporate tax rate and a as that is not affected by the Treaty there is no argument there. One can only surmise that "big business" as other ambitions.
Cowen could be read to suggest that this vote is bout EU membership when he said “When the IDA competes with another region, whether from Europe or beyond, any possible undermining of our EU membership will be fully exploited, and the chances of the investment and jobs ending up in Ireland will shrink.”
Since when has this vote been about EU membership?
If big business is threatening that a country where the politicians can no longer dictate to their electorate is a reason not to invest then it says more about big business than it does about politicians or the treaty.
All that aside, to answer your question, not based on the quote you so deftly extracted
, but on the entire article based on quotes judicially embroidered by the journalist:D it would appear when you read between the lines that the subject of the article is indeed scaremongering as he "warned" and "stressed" "unequivicoally" using multisylabics. 0 -
Speaking as someone who works for such a company, yes, and it puts to bed the idea that it's simply scaremongering. He's repeating what he's been told by the business themselves.StealthRolex wrote: »The poster campaign might not be explicit but the implication has been endorsed by our great leader himself. That was my point and I recall I used the same argument in a previous post albeit tongue in cheek.
On a personal note having worked for various "big Business" entities that outsourced their operations to Ireland and elsewhere I don't take what they say seriously. We have had inward investment that boosted jobs temporarily and then they move on. I would much rather see the effort and money be directed towards indigenous business development.
A no vote may discourage some companies from setting up shop here but is that really a bad thing?
Or if Ireland's commitment to the EU, and therefore the common market, is in doubt going into the future. Not that we'll be kicked out but it seems we don't want to go where everyone else is going.StealthRolex wrote: »Anyway the treaty is about the adminstration of Europe, not Ireland so an EU without this treaty should be no worse or better in business terms. There is not much in the Treaty itself that would encourage big business to set up anywhere in Europe. Big Business always goes to where it is cheapest and most efficient to operate. It only cares about politics if politicians are going to cost them money.
Um, no, I don't think anyone said anything about the corporate tax rate.StealthRolex wrote: »The real nub of the "big business" issue is the corporate tax rate and a as that is not affected by the Treaty there is no argument there. One can only surmise that "big business" as other ambitions.
It's not and no one's suggesting we're leaving the EU. It's about undermining our perceived commitment to the EU.StealthRolex wrote: »Cowen could be read to suggest that this vote is bout EU membership when he said “When the IDA competes with another region, whether from Europe or beyond, any possible undermining of our EU membership will be fully exploited, and the chances of the investment and jobs ending up in Ireland will shrink.”
Since when has this vote been about EU membership?
It has absolutely nothing in any way whatsoever to do with politicians being able to dictate to the people. They want us to vote yes because they think it will be good for Ireland and the EU, not to show that we're good little sheep.StealthRolex wrote: »If big business is threatening that a country where the politicians can no longer dictate to their electorate is a reason not to invest then it says more about big business than it does about politicians or the treaty.
It's only scaremongering if it's not true, otherwise it's rightly warning of the possible consequences of our actions.StealthRolex wrote: »All that aside, to answer your question, not based on the quote you so deftly extracted, but on the entire article based on quotes judicially embroidered by the journalist:D it would appear when you read between the lines that the subject of the article is indeed scaremongering as he "warned" and "stressed" "unequivicoally" using multisylabics.0 -
Speaking as someone who works for such a company, yes, and it puts to bed the idea that it's simply scaremongering. He's repeating what he's been told by the business themselves.
If he is only repeating what he as been told maybe he's been scared by something he heardOr if Ireland's commitment to the EU, and therefore the common market, is in doubt going into the future. Not that we'll be kicked out but it seems we don't want to go where everyone else is going.
Everyone else is only going where their governments are leading them - need I point out that Ireland is the only country where non-politicians are getting to make a decision on this?
As such Ireland is one of the few countries where an ordinary civilian has made a decent effort at reading the treaty and tried to figure out where we're going.Um, no, I don't think anyone said anything about the corporate tax rate.
Well spottedIt's not and no one's suggesting we're leaving the EU. It's about undermining our perceived commitment to the EU.
Whatever the attitude of the Yes campaign to the No campaign we are not all nutters. Some of us are committed enough to Europe to be prepared to say this is not a good treaty for civilians. It's great for politicians and great for big business so I would expect big politicians and big business to seek to have in endorsed.
You see, _they_ think it will be good for Ireland. Some of us do not agree.It has absolutely nothing in any way whatsoever to do with politicians being able to dictate to the people. They want us to vote yes because they think it will be good for Ireland and the EU, not to show that we're good little sheep.
And they only _think_ it will be good. They have no evidence and cannot prove it.It's only scaremongering if it's not true, otherwise it's rightly warning of the possible consequences of our actions.
Ah - 'warning' & 'possible consequences' = scaremongering. Gotchya
:D:D 0 -
He's warning that a no vote to Lisbon will make it "more difficult to attract and secure inward investment [from big business]". And he's being told this.....by big business, who are the ones who would be doing the investing.StealthRolex wrote: »If he is only repeating what he as been told maybe he's been scared by something he heard
The decision has been made and they're going whether they want to or not.StealthRolex wrote: »Everyone else is only going where their governments are leading them - need I point out that Ireland is the only country where non-politicians are getting to make a decision on this?
You say it's great for big business and then say that they have no evidence that it will be greatStealthRolex wrote: »Whatever the attitude of the Yes campaign to the No campaign we are not all nutters. Some of us are committed enough to Europe to be prepared to say this is not a good treaty for civilians. It's great for politicians and great for big business so I would expect big politicians and big business to seek to have in endorsed.
You see, _they_ think it will be good for Ireland. Some of us do not agree.
And they only _think_ it will be good. They have no evidence and cannot prove it.
Do you really think that the interests of all of these companies that pump so much money into the country and employ so many people here are so far removed from your own that what's good for them can't possibly be good for you?
The people who are best positioned to know whether or not this treaty will benefit the economy are saying it will and the people who are against it for other reasons are trying to play this down. I'm going to go with former.
No, warning of impossible consequences=scaremongering which is what most of the no campaign are engaged inStealthRolex wrote: »Ah - 'warning' & 'possible consequences' = scaremongering. Gotchya:D:D0
Advertisement