Wall St Journal - Ireland has no reason to fear the consequences of No vote on Lisbon

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Blaming cheap credit for the bubble is like a fat guy blaming cheap food for his weight problem.

not only that but he forgets to mention that EU membership allowed our people to work in other countries with no hassle

Toiletroll

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Blaming cheap credit for the bubble is like a fat guy blaming cheap food for his weight problem.

Well it came from Lenihan, the same fool that wants you to vote yes :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

who wrote the opinion piece?

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

Well it came from Lenihan, the same fool that wants you to vote yes :rolleyes:

hes from FF

who cares what they say

their days are numbered

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

who wrote the opinion piece?

toiletroll?

jokes aside thats a good question

Toiletroll

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not only that but he forgets to mention that EU membership allowed our people to work in other countries with no hassle

The EU is fine but Lisbon makes it a totally different beast altogether. There is nothing wrong with the EU in its current state. Lisbon is overkill imho!

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

The EU is fine but Lisbon makes it a totally different beast altogether. There is nothing wrong with the EU in its current state. Lisbon is overkill imho!

what exactly in Lisbon is an "overkill" ?

marco_polo

Hmm, a nameless op-ed piece that appeared in the European printed edition of the Wall Street Journal.

For a 'foreign' writer with no associations with Ireland at all whatsoever I swear, they sure have a very strong opnion on the matter. :rolleyes:

I call shennagians.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

Well it came from Lenihan, the same fool that wants you to vote yes :rolleyes:

Fortunately for me I can evaluate things on my own, and don't have to rely on Lenhian or the WSJ to do my thinking for me.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Hmm, a nameless op-ed piece that appeared in the European printed edition of the Wall Street Journal.

For a 'foreign' writer with no associations with Ireland at all whatsoever I swear, they sure have a very strong opnion on the matter. :rolleyes:

I call shennagians.

Are you suspecting a certain 'influential businessman' was involved?

O'Morris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

By and large.

So that's a no then.

Dinner wrote:

That article is completley ridiculous. Devoid of any kind of balance. Instead resortng to the same trash thats been floating around for months now, been forced to vote again, first result cast aside, incomprehensible treaty etc...

Isn't that just a bit over the top? All the article does is expose and counter the hysterical scaremongering about the consequences of a no vote by pointing out that Ireland's position in the EU will remain unchanged regardless of how we vote.

For example:

Last Friday, Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan told a press conference that "a 'No' vote will signal to the rest of the world that Ireland has retreated into economic isolation." This in turn would lead to capital flight from Ireland and higher interest rates and borrowing costs for the Irish economy.

If people on the no side can be criticised for making unfounded scaremongering claims then why shouldn't the yes side be held to the same standard. Or would you disagree with this quote from the end of the article:

It should never have come to this at all. When they do vote in two weeks, however, we hope that vote is an informed one, and not based on unfounded fear-mongering or dark threats.

Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

Martin 2

Toiletroll wrote: »

I think you need to re-evaluate the reasons those companies are supporting Lisbon.

Intel are in a huge multi-billion euro monopoly case with the EU where the EU want to fine them 1.4Bn due to monopoly issues with that canadian company AMD... Great way to get them to support it, with the appeal from Intel coming up shortly after Lisbon.

O Leary wanted to get rid of the pilot unions!

The WSJ doesn't mention Intel, and certainly doesn't mention your accusations in relation to any multinationals (probably libelous). Intel Ireland has mentioned on many occasions the damage that a No vote could do to Ireland's reputations for FDI, so their main reason for supporting a yes is that it's in the best interests of their operation here and their employees, there may be some patronage gained in Europe but that's incidental. But why look at just Intel; Pfizer, Oral B and HP have also come out in favour of Lisbon, are they all facing anti-trust fines and what about the countless other multinationals who come under the umbrella of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, why are they supporting a Yes? they are not all facing fines.

Btw, In a recent poll of economists ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0912/1224254386236.html ) “Just under 91 per cent of the economists expressed the belief a Yes vote best-served the economic interests of the State”

marco_polo

You couldn't make this stuff up, they did indeed publish some of the unconsolidated treaty text.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416803430776262.html

Still somebody is lacking the balls to put their name down against either piece.

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

The Yes campaign has been pretty sh*te, for the most part. As regards fear-mongering and dark threats, it seems they learned a lesson from the first result.

Toiletroll

O'Morris wrote: »

So that's a no then.




Isn't that just a bit over the top? All the article does is expose and counter the hysterical scaremongering about the consequences of a no vote by pointing out that Ireland's position in the EU will remain unchanged regardless of how we vote.

For example:



If people on the no side can be criticised for making unfounded scaremongering claims then why shouldn't the yes side be held to the same standard. Or would you disagree with this quote from the end of the article:



Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

Brilliant post! Very logical and back to reality of the matter.

BlitzKrieg

Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

i have to ask.

Who hasnt relied on fear mongering and dark threats in this campaign?

both sides have done nothing else. Accusing one side of doing it more then the other is idiocy because both sides have done nothing else.

if you dont want fear mongering and dark threats then educate yourself on the treaty and make your own decision.


I still want to know who wrote th piece though.

Toiletroll

Martin 2 wrote: »

The WSJ doesn't mention Intel, and certainly doesn't mention your accusations in relation to any multinationals (probably libelous). Intel Ireland has mentioned on many occasions the damage that a No vote could do to Ireland's reputations for FDI, so their main reason for supporting a yes is that it's in the best interests of their operation here and their employees, there may be some patronage gained in Europe but that's incidental. But why look at just Intel; Pfizer, Oral B and HP have also come out in favour of Lisbon, are they all facing anti-trust fines and what about the countless other multinationals who come under the umbrella of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, why are they supporting a Yes? they are not all facing fines.

Btw, In a recent poll of economists ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0912/1224254386236.html ) “Just under 91 per cent of the economists expressed the belief a Yes vote best-served the economic interests of the State”

The Irish Times - Thanks for the unbiased link!

The same paper had polls last year favouring the yes up to the day before the vote but we know how that turned out.

Also - 91% of selected economists. There was another unbiased poll of economists done after that one which showed almost 50 / 50%

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

You couldn't make this stuff up, they did indeed publish some of the unconsolidated treaty text.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416803430776262.html

A blatant attempt to baffle rather than educate, to cast shadow instead of light. The WSJ ought to be ashamed of itself, it's just joined my 'never buy this rag' list.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

Also - 91% of selected economists. There was another unbiased poll of economists done after that one which showed almost 50 / 50%

Interesting... got a link?

marco_polo

Incidenly the OP was ripped word for word from a known Libertas online hideout that shall remain nameless.

Interesting anonoymous Libertas Blog here too. Apparently the quoted piece is doing the email rounds.

http://libertasinsider.blogspot.com/2009/09/libertas-back-in-game.html

INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS READ TRUTH ABOUT LISBON WHILE YES SIDE LIE – GANLEY

“3 million global business leaders are reading the truth about the Lisbon Treaty this morning while the people of Ireland pass lamp-posts littered with lies on their way to work” Libertas Leader Declan Ganley has said today.

Mr. Ganley was responding to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal which said that Finance Minister Brian Lenihan was “peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes”. The paper also said that “no sane businessman” would see a No to Lisbon as a “vote against Europe”, and that Ireland had “no reason to fear the consequences of a No vote”.

Responding, Mr. Ganley said that it was absolutely clear that the only job saved by the Lisbon Treaty would be Brian Cowen’s:

“It’s a sad day when 3 million global business leaders are told the truth by the world’s most famous business newspaper, while the same number and more of Irish people are having the truth hidden from them”,

“This Treaty has absolutely nothing to do with jobs or the economy. It has everything to do with a fanatical class of deluded people at the top of Irish society who are determined to have their way at any cost.”

“The truth is that despite hanging thousands of bland, misleading posters across the country, and rolling out about a hundred astroturf groups made up of the same small fanatical band of professional Brussels-leeches, the Yes side cannot point to a single job this piece of junk treaty would create”.

“Meanwhile, in the real world, the bible of the international investor is telling its readers the truth. There will be no jobs. Ireland will not be a better place to invest. The Government is telling lies. And No sane businessman agrees with their ideas.”

“So, who will the Irish people believe? The same Government that has brought the country to the edge of an economic cliff, or the 33-time Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper which is read by every serious investor on the planet?”

“Other than Brian Cowen’s, the yes side cannot point to a single job that this treaty will create. And therein lies the answer to the question”

Martin 2

Toiletroll wrote: »

The Irish Times - Thanks for the unbiased link!

The same paper had polls last year favouring the yes up to the day before the vote but we know how that turned out.

Also - 91% of selected economists. There was another unbiased poll of economists done after that one which showed almost 50 / 50%

It's not an IT survey, they are only publishing the results, the primary source is here: http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/aw_lisbon_sept.pdf
What's the source for the survey you mention?
What are your comments on the fact that not all MNC's are facing EU fines but yet support a Yes vote?

dermot_sheehan

I like the way the RTE report on this was prefaced with "The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by eurosceptic Ruper Murdoch"

marco_polo

More interesting facts about the European Edition of the Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal Europe currently has an average daily circulation of just 78,230 - of which 52,518 are bulk giveaways. Its daily UK circulation is 16,468.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43803

Meet the editor in chief Patience Wheatcroft famous for once heavily editing a Sunday Telegraph pieces that was highly critical of David Cameron.

Former places of work include The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, The Sunday Times and The Daily Telegraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patience_Wheatcroft

EDIT: And who interviewed Mr Gantley last week in the same paper? Why none other than the editorial page editor Brian M. Carney.

Result: Signed sealed and delivered. The almost perfect argument from authority for the no side.

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

The WSJ was bought by Rupert Murdoch last year - hence the hagiographic WSJ piece on Ganley last week. It's now as trustworthy as Fox News.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Totiletroll given your interest in conspiracy theories I would have thought a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper would be the last thing you'd trust?

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

Totiletroll given your interest in conspiracy theories I would have thought a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper would be the last thing you'd trust?

That's the funny thing about conspiracy theorists. "Climate change hoaxers" love to cite the fact that some fellow hoaxer is a scientist while ignoring the vast majority of scientists. Creationists the same - any Creationist with a BSc in a biological field (including Physiology) is automatically accredited with expert status, while all other scientists are dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, 9/11 hoaxers will believe pretty much anyone off the street.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the funny thing about conspiracy theorists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Confirmation bias much!?

dresden8

Mr. Ganley was responding to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal which said that Finance Minister Brian Lenihan was “peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes”. The paper also said that “no sane businessman” would see a No to Lisbon as a “vote against Europe”, and that Ireland had “no reason to fear the consequences of a No vote”.

So, are we living in fear of Europe or not?

Is Ganley correct, we have nothing to fear from our "friends", or are they going to check us into the smackdown motel if we defy them?

Confusedly

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

So, are we living in fear of Europe or not?

Is Ganley correct, we have nothing to fear from our "friends", or are they going to check us into the smackdown motel if we defy them?

Confusedly

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

amused,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

amused,
Scofflaw

Why yes, I have.

Do we have "consequences" to fear?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Why yes, I have.

I'm delighted to hear it - was it divorce, a restraining order, or a sudden rush of remorse that made you stop? And do you admit now that it was wrong to beat her in the first place?

dresden8 wrote: »

Do we have "consequences" to fear?

Yes, there are consequences, but it's up to you whether you fear them.

amused,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

And low and behold some guy from Libertas on the 9 O'Clock news going, pleading with us to look at what the Wall street with its 2,000,000 readers said about Lisbon.

Eh no it appeared in an obscure regional edition of the paper with 9X times less paying customers (16,468) than the Irish Independent (152,204). :rolleyes: