Brian Lenihan - We never said we'd have a strong economy and loads of jobs [YES vote]

Duiske

bugler wrote: »

Anyway, politicans make unreasonable claims, promises and lie outright in every campaign...why should this be any different? And are you going to revisit the No campaigners with similar vigour when abortion, euthanasia and a €1.84 minimum wage fail to materialise?

The No campaigners who made the outrageous claims on the issues you mention above are now of no consequence, they don't matter. What does matter is that we have a Minister for Finance who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to lie to the electorate.
Ireland is in massive financial trouble. I'd like to think that the person tasked with getting us out of this mess was trustworthy. Is that to much to ask ?

Tir

seamus wrote: »

And you've just insulted half. Odd that someone so patriotic would think so little of his countrymen.

The "other half" must learn to formulate a course of action based on both reason and spirit, the visible and invisible; and by doing this they will realise that talking in whatever capacity is not the equivalent of action; but that words are preliminary to it.

I respect my equals and my betters, this is enough.

Sam Vimes

Duiske wrote: »

The No campaigners who made the outrageous claims on the issues you mention above are now of no consequence, they don't matter. What does matter is that we have a Minister for Finance who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to lie to the electorate.
Ireland is in massive financial trouble. I'd like to think that the person tasked with getting us out of this mess was trustworthy. Is that to much to ask ?

Look, "yes to jobs" never meant "100,000 jobs for Monday", that is and always was an extremely over simplified interpretation meant to make a reasonable economic prediction based on experience and sound advice sound like a lie. I know what he meant because if he meant what the people on the no side claim he would be retarded. Not only would he be retarded but anyone who believed him would also be retarded. Using my knowledge that Brian Lenihan is unlikely to be retarded or at the very least, someone in either FF or FG would realise that the people are not retarded, I took a more reasonable interpretation of the slogans: that a yes vote, while not being the answer to all of our problems, would help our situation a lot more than a no vote.

View

Tir wrote: »

The backtracking continues!!! Economically speaking this country is screwed for years to come, whether it was yes or no, the only difference is we would have been sovereign if we had sent a loud and clear NO.

If by "sovereign" you mean it in the "virginity" sense (where you either are or you aren't), then a No vote would have made d*^n all difference. We made the decision to pool/give up (depending on your political view) some of our sovereignity in 1972, so you are complaining about the wrong referendum.

vinylbomb

Tir wrote: »

Ah well - the next budget will wake "the people" up with its massive cuts in spending. You will be wondering how "Yes to Recovery" ever got by you.

All this crap is a mix between Free-Stater rubbish, except this time the "yoke of oppression" is the EU, and not the Queen - and the anarchist manifesto that is camouflaged as anti-capitalism that comes from the G8 protesters.

Neither are meritorious, and this thread is following the same pre-Lisbon treaty pattern of other threads.

Ridiculous claims, countered by sourced facts, and answered with more ridiculous claims.

Tir, judging by your zealotry, I would say that you don't see too many of your fellow Irish as deserving the title of "your equal", and therefore your respect, which is saddening to say the least.

Duiske

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look, "yes to jobs" never meant "100,000 jobs for Monday", .

And I fully understand that. I don't think anyone in their right mind believed otherwise. I voted Yes because I believe that we are better off in the game than watching from the sidelines.

Anyway, my comment was aimed at bugler, who said "politicans make unreasonable claims, promises and lie outright in every campaign...why should this be any different?" And I stand by what I said. I'd rather not have untrustworthy liars in control of this countrys future.

Wheely

Tir wrote: »

You have just upset half of the country.

I voted yes and didn't think that that would happen.

Hydrosylator

thebman wrote: »

:P
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1005/breaking47.htm

http://www.generationyes.ie/2009/09/21/lisbon-greening-the-irish-jobs-market/

And Lisbon isn't actually in force yet.

That's lovely but it doesn't actually mean anything. If you think it does mean something, have a look at this graph and you can see that things have been slowly improving on the market, which I must stress is not an indicator of employment or quality of life, since march.

Then change it to a 5 year view, and that should put things in context.

Hydrosylator

Rb wrote: »

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but Irelands history isn't as glamorous as you might like to think.

Right, so Spain, Italy and Germany have glamorous histories now do they?

Edit***
I'm not saying this an argument against them now, rather that bringing history into the argument doesn't improve anything.

turgon

Sorry Tir, you missed one of my posts. Here it is, so it will be really easy for you to answer:

Tir wrote: »

"WE JUSTNEEEEDD EUROPE." Yes, but do we really need the Europe EU doing what it's currently doing?

And what exactly is that?

vinylbomb

turgon wrote: »

And what exactly is that?

Good luck getting an answer, he's probably on another thread making the same noise by now.

roosh

Erra, at least we can look forward to a Gold at the next Olympics in the 100m Backpeddling Freestyle

granite man

One thing I don't quite get, business' are apparently complaining about the 'lack of credit', ie they need a lend of money to keep going, well, the industry I work in (and I own my own company) is suffering, not due to lack of credit, but the fact that people are NOT spending money. Therefore, jobs are being lost, not created. What is the point in borrowing just to stay afloat and increasing debt when there is no business to be had. Has no one learnt anything from the credit bubble bursting? It's just not viable to survive on borrowed cash no matter what way you choose to dress it up.

truthisfree

2430 jobs lost in the 5 days since the referendum, the biggest single lie of the whole debate, vote yes for jobs, vote yes for recovery.

K-9

truthisfree wrote: »

2430 jobs lost in the 5 days since the referendum, the biggest single lie of the whole debate, vote yes for jobs, vote yes for recovery.

So, a Yes to Lisbon would have saved the jobs in Aer Lingus how exactly?

RandomName2

K-9 wrote: »

So, a Yes to Lisbon would have saved the jobs in Aer Lingus how exactly?

Because multinationals like AerLingus are rolling in money and just interested in how pro-European Ireland is. Moreover, the EU will bail out any company like AerLingus in the unlikely event of it getting into fiscal distress.

As IBEC said 'our future begins with a yes to Lisbon'

What a great future lads!

Legalise gay marriage.

Why?

The jobs, of course!

Repeal the divorce law.

Why?

Economic recovery!

Grant legal competencies to the EU.

Why?

This is an obvious route to Irish employment that only loolahs would deny!

Oh, of course, we might have been thrown out of the EU for voting no. But -thank god- that 'possibility' was avoided.

.!.

truthisfree wrote: »

2430 jobs lost in the 5 days since the referendum, the biggest single lie of the whole debate, vote yes for jobs, vote yes for recovery.

Don't confuse propaganda with reality.

What did people expect the Yes camp to say? Anymore than the No camp?

More interesting will be the EU paying for all those ad's in the Sunday papers

roosh

K-9 wrote: »

So, a Yes to Lisbon would have saved the jobs in Aer Lingus how exactly?

perhaps they may have fallen under the category of "Jobs" that a yes was in favour of?

just a possible suggestion

.!.

mangaroosh wrote: »

perhaps they may have fallen under the category of "Jobs" that a yes was in favour of?

just a possible suggestion

As a fellow No voter do you really expect all expectations to come to fruition in the following days?

Seriously.

RandomName2

Rb wrote: »

It's unfortunate that so many people thought that this is what the main parties were trying to imply by the slogans and consequently tried to push a No vote, for months, based on this misunderstanding.

From people that I spoke to who voted yes there were about four main feelings:

One: We can't afford the possibility of being forced out of the EU, that this risk was implied by our politicians, and that though probably a small risk, was certainly not worth taking for ambiguous reasons.

Two: EU membership = money. Slightly different from One insofar that there was the general consensus that the EU actually hasn't done anything bad to us, yet.

Three: We are a weak, isolated backwater, and cannot afford to distance powerful political forces in Europe. A nice return to 19th century realpolitik.

Four: The EU is too powerful to fight and we now have the opportunity at a compromise in the form of the guarantees.

Generally all of the above excluded the 'Treaty of Lisbon' as the actual driving motive behind their rationale to vote yes; but then again, they seemed to take the perspective that there were larger issues at play that the legal document that we were voting on (as our political parties repeatedly stated -ad nauseum). I still think that these 'bigger issues' were chimeras.

marco_polo

granite man wrote: »

One thing I don't quite get, business' are apparently complaining about the 'lack of credit', ie they need a lend of money to keep going, well, the industry I work in (and I own my own company) is suffering, not due to lack of credit, but the fact that people are NOT spending money. Therefore, jobs are being lost, not created. What is the point in borrowing just to stay afloat and increasing debt when there is no business to be had. Has no one learnt anything from the credit bubble bursting? It's just not viable to survive on borrowed cash no matter what way you choose to dress it up.

Complicated but to illustrate wit ha few examples businesses who owe other business money have a nasty habit of leaving it until the last minute to pay off the balance on an invoice .(Usually the limit on these things is about 90 days or so). So in the meantime it is often a choice to either not pay the ESB and staff wages, or get credit. Indeed in the case of a retailer the balance of the Invoice may be paid off with credit, before the merchandise is sold.

Basically credit is very important, in the cashflow merry-go-round. Not to mention other factors like startup funds, expansion, modernisation etc, etc.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

What a great future lads!

Legalise gay marriage.

Why?

The jobs, of course!

Repeal the divorce law.

Why?

Economic recovery!

What?

mangaroosh wrote: »

perhaps they may have fallen under the category of "Jobs" that a yes was in favour of?

just a possible suggestion

And how would a Yes to Lisbon last week change that?

RandomName2 wrote: »

From people that I spoke to who voted yes there were about four main feelings:

One: We can't afford the possibility of being forced out of the EU, that this risk was implied by our politicians, and that though probably a small risk, was certainly not worth taking for ambiguous reasons.

Two: EU membership = money. Slightly different from One insofar that there was the general consensus that the EU actually hasn't done anything bad to us, yet.

Three: We are a weak, isolated backwater, and cannot afford to distance powerful political forces in Europe. A nice return to 19th century realpolitik.

Four: The EU is too powerful to fight and we now have the opportunity at a compromise in the form of the guarantees.

Generally all of the above excluded the 'Treaty of Lisbon' as the actual driving motive behind their rationale to vote yes; but then again, they seemed to take the perspective that there were larger issues at play that the legal document that we were voting on (as our political parties repeatedly stated -ad nauseum). I still think that these 'bigger issues' were chimeras.

Tbh, most No voters didn't vote No because of Lisbon either. It's something that works both ways. The No vote last time was hardly based on the Treaty.

granite man

marco_polo wrote: »

Because businesses who owe other business money have a nasty habit of leaving it until the last minute to pay off the balance on an invoice .(Usually the limit on these things is about 90 days or so). So in the meantime it is often a choice to either not pay the ESB and staff wages, or get credit. Indeed in the case of a retailer the balance of the Invoice may be paid off with credit, before the merchandise is sold.

Basically it is very important, in the cashflow merry-go-round.

Been there done that. The point I'm making is how viable is the said business if it needs to rely on credit to continually prop itself up? The 90 day rule works both ways.

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

So, a Yes to Lisbon would have saved the jobs in Aer Lingus how exactly?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/thinking-the-unthinkable-at-aer-lingus-1873219.html

I am not an economist but I would have thought that it would happen something do with them burning through €363m of their €802m cash reserves in little under a year (June 2008 - 2009).

Actually that €363m was all lost just after we voted No the last time so perhaps .......


Nah, just a terribly run business.

marco_polo

granite man wrote: »

Been there done that. The point I'm making is how viable is the said business if it needs to rely on credit to continually prop itself up? The 90 day rule works both ways.

We are not talking about big corportaions here. Small business do not have large cash reserves, many owners will take out very little in a bad year if anything at all. I know having grown up in such an environment, unless we were the exception, rather than the rule. Which I very much doubt.

And without credit there can be no new business, and no new jobs.

granite man

I know what you mean, but what use is it in creating new jobs when you're paying yourself from the credit fund. As I said its just not viable.

schween

truthisfree wrote: »

2430 jobs lost in the 5 days since the referendum, the biggest single lie of the whole debate, vote yes for jobs, vote yes for recovery.

Your username is ironic. There's a difference between truth and common sense. Did you actually think the Yes campaign were saying that those 2,430 jobs would be saved and 300,000 jobs would be created in the last 5 days?

marco_polo

granite man wrote: »

I know what you mean, but what use is it in creating new jobs when you're paying yourself from the credit fund. As I said its just not viable.

I thionk it is important to make a distinction between long term viable business who may be forced to fold for a lack of short term credit, and badly run business who are genuinely doomed to failure.

And again it must be said that in the absence of a sugar daddy, credit is the only game in town for anyone who wants to start up a new one.

truthisfree

schween wrote: »

Your username is ironic. There's a difference between truth and common sense. Did you actually think the Yes campaign were saying that those 2,430 jobs would be saved and 300,000 jobs would be created in the last 5 days?

I think that the yes campaign was the most disgraceful campaign I have ever witnessed, scaremongering, bullying and downright lies from the ruling parties. It must be a very hollow victory for the yesmen, and if not, well give it about another six months!

dresden8

schween wrote: »

Your username is ironic. There's a difference between truth and common sense. Did you actually think the Yes campaign were saying that those 2,430 jobs would be saved and 300,000 jobs would be created in the last 5 days?

300,000 jobs in the last 5 days.

You insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!