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

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't buy the slant of what you said, but it is a great relief that you have promised not to say it again.

I'm pleased for you that you clearly didn't have to put up with the FF, FG, IBEC, Liberal, Intel and (undisclosed) posters that were put up a few weeks ago.

When you're in Europe you are either a team player or you are not. It is not time for Ireland to rock the boat and start asking pointless loolah questions. You are either with us or you are not. There is a march of progress that, if we do not fall in step with, we will be left behind.

In fact, above the ballot paper should have been written 'Are you a team player?'

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm pleased for you that you clearly didn't have to put up with the FF, FG, IBEC, Liberal, Intel and (undisclosed) posters that were put up a few weeks ago.

When you're in Europe you are either a team player or you are not. It is not time for Ireland to rock the boat and start asking pointless loolah questions. You are either with us or you are not. There is a march of progress that, if we do not fall in step with, we will be left behind.

In fact, above the ballot paper should have been written 'Are you a team player?'

I wouldn't say that that's quite as outrageous a paraphrase as you clearly think it is...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't say that that's quite as outrageous a paraphrase as you clearly think it is...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Me neither. This treaty did not require us to hand over our first born sons to the EU lizard people, it was mostly a housekeeping document and rejecting it shows at the very least that Ireland doesn't share the same goals as its neighbours. The only real potential problem with it was the move to QMV in some areas but firstly the areas were either uncontentious or we had opt outs from them and secondly, QMV is only a problem if you think that at least 15 of our neighbours are going to gang up on us and force things on us that we are fundamentally opposed to. Tbh if you think that's going to happen then your problem isn't with the Lisbon treaty

ednwireland

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, .

ever heard of cashflow ?

the company i work fro has 10's of thousands invoiced but getting the money in is the problem, or we do lots of work but cant get invoiced for it until we finish we need credit lines to support us its not about borrowing money to keep going (well it is)

or i had some double glazing done the guy needs to order in materials to do work he might not have the cash sitting round but plenty of orders needs credit to fulfill orders, make some money keep people employed, do you even have the faintest notion of how business works?

truthisfree

vinylbomb wrote: »

What are you on about?
Ray Burke pleaded guilty to corruption in 2004. He was not part of the current government.
What does this have to do with the current government "lying to the electorate"

Really?
Even with every independent on their side this lot wouldn't have enough for a coalition after the next election.

I'm afraid it is.

I recommend reading your own posts, you have taken everything I have posted out of context and even questioned your own statement about the treaty being enacted!

I return to the OP, and the statement I made already, the government lied to it's electorate with its, yes for jobs, yes for economic recovery.

A Government that lies to it's electorate, has proven corruption and cronyism within it's ranks, and a spineless opposition! is it any wonder people are questioning the validity of the count?

hatrickpatrick

^ Well I proposed a new law which simply states "absolutely no lies or untruths whatsoever are allowed during any election or ballot campaign, including ambiguous promises which are specifically designed to make it look like something will happen when there's just a vague outside chance that it might".

Everyone said it was "too idealistic to be realistic".

Says a lot about the state of politics, doesn't it? It's just my opinion, but anyone who is running for election or holding a public office should be legally required to tell the absolute truth, to the best of their ability, at all times when dealing with public matters. When I say "to the best of their ability", I do NOT mean "unless it's not in the public interest" - I really don't believe in that BS (democracy and transparency should always be paramount). I mean if, and only if, the official / politician in question genuinely doesn't know the answer to the question posed, or genuinely believes their answer even if it turns out to be wrong.

But I mean the situation we have now in politics is that campaign promises and public statements aren't worth ****e. Does anyone actually believe anything a government tells them anymore?

I then find it quite ironic when the yes side use analogies like "If you were buying a house, would you read all the legal documents yourself or get someone you trust (your solicitor) to summarize them for you?" The problem with that analogy is that in order for it to work you have to actually trust the government. And I don't think anyone trusts the government.

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Well I proposed a new law which simply states "absolutely no lies or untruths whatsoever are allowed during any election or ballot campaign, including ambiguous promises which are specifically designed to make it look like something will happen when there's just a vague outside chance that it might".

Everyone said it was "too idealistic to be realistic".

The problem with that is who decides what a "vague outside chance" is? I saw the yes slogans as reasonable predictions but many on the no side misinterpreted them in ridiculous ways such as "100,000 jobs for Monday" which made them appear to be lies. But then on the other hand we have things like "€1.84 after Lisbon <question mark to make it all ok>". That's not a reasonable prediction, it's a lie.

Any treaty/law/whatever will have some implications beyond the literal text but by outlawing what you describe as "ambiguous promises" you'd effectively be banning anyone from discussing them

Rb

hopalong85 wrote: »

Says the guy who grinded small stakes nlh online for a "living" at some stage in his past. Possibly you still do, I'm not sure nor do I care. Without paying taxes as that's tax free obv. Unless you've changed greatly since you used to frequent the poker forum please go away.

As for what you said above? LOL. No=domestic abuse now does it? No=lack of contraception? Absolutely hilarious tbh. For someone who tries to come across as well informed on this treaty and life in general, you fail miserably to be honest.

Thank you, I haven't laughed as hard as I am right now since at least last weekend

vinylbomb

truthisfree wrote: »

I recommend reading your own posts, you have taken everything I have posted out of context and even questioned your own statement about the treaty being enacted!

You're actually spouting even more nonsense now than you were earlier which is scarcely believable, but I'll humour you

truthisfree wrote: »

I return to the OP, and the statement I made already, the government lied to it's electorate with its, yes for jobs, yes for economic recovery.

A Government that lies to it's electorate, has proven corruption and cronyism within it's ranks, and a spineless opposition! is it any wonder people are questioning the validity of the count?

Fine, I'll return to the OP too, and make it VERY simple.

Back up your claim with FACT, that the yes vote will (or will not if you can provide evidence) be bad for economic recovery.

Put up or shut up time.

truthisfree

vinylbomb wrote: »

You're actually spouting even more nonsense now than you were earlier which is scarcely believable, but I'll humour you
Fine, I'll return to the OP too, and make it VERY simple.
Back up your claim with FACT, that the yes vote will (or will not if you can provide evidence) be bad for economic recovery.

Put up or shut up time.

Actually I would rather find an intelligent conversation with someone else who does not make personal attacks and can have an informed discussion without resorting to posts like this, thank you.

Tony EH

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. Will Irish people ever learn??

Brian Lenihan on Vincent Browne show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCxoL0gjtFY


Also, you might want to watch this one if you haven't seen it already.. the crooks win again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE



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.

Yep, a feckin liar...just like his father was before him.

Brian probably had no "mature recollection" of what was promised.

truthisfree

Tony EH wrote: »

Yep, a feckin liar...just like his father was before him.

Brian probably had no "mature recollection" of what was promised.

Amazing how history repeats itself, what a joke the main political parties have become, well always were tbh. We were lied to and that fact will not change no matter how it is spun and no matter how it is re-written! Not so much a referendum but a "go out there and do what you are told" a language all too familiar to the Yesmen that keep these idiots in power.

Irish and Proud

Tony EH wrote: »

Yep, a feckin liar...just like his father was before him.

Brian probably had no "mature recollection" of what was promised.

That's one big reason why I voted NO! I don't trust mainstream politicians one bit. They are good for nothing liars. Did you hear some of the quotes from politicians across the EU - quotes relating to empires, along with those signalling intentional deceptions like "gone is the term Constitution", and "the core of it is still there" (both in relation to Lisbon and the EU Constitution). Also, the very guy who compiled the EU Constitution seemed dismayed at the way it was being pushed through (under the Lisbon Treaty) when he said:

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

V.Giscard D'Estaing Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution - Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

V.Giscard D'Estaing at the time seemed to be clearly warning against pushing through the proposed EU Constitution in a disguised manner (like the Lisbon Treaty). In short, the above seems to be stating deception on the part of politicians - surprise surprise!!! :rolleyes:

Regards!

meglome

Irish and Proud wrote: »

That's one big reason why I voted NO! I don't trust mainstream politicians one bit. They are good for nothing liars. Did you hear some of the quotes from politicians across the EU - quotes relating to empires, along with those signalling intentional deceptions like "gone is the term Constitution", and "the core of it is still there" (both in relation to Lisbon and the EU Constitution). Also, the very guy who compiled the EU Constitution seemed dismayed at the way it was being pushed through (under the Lisbon Treaty) when he said:

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

V.Giscard D'Estaing Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution - Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

V.Giscard D'Estaing at the time seemed to be clearly warning against pushing through the proposed EU Constitution in a disguised manner (like the Lisbon Treaty). In short, the above seems to be stating deception on the part of politicians - surprise surprise!!! :rolleyes:

Regards!

Many of these quotes have been shown time and time again to be out of context or completely misrepresented. But let's assume for a moment he really said and meant what is quoted (which I doubt). Myself and a good few other people in here have read the Lisbon treaty so this opinion means absolutely nothing, we know what's there and what isn't. It's a detailed legal document which can be read by anyone so how do you think these things can be 'hidden' exactly?

Can people please stop quoting nonsense. Just read the treaty.

Oh and why would you need to trust mainstream politicians to vote yes? there were literally dozens of other organisations calling for a Yes vote and I suppose you could go mental and read the treaty.

View

Irish and Proud wrote: »

That's one big reason why I voted NO! I don't trust mainstream politicians one bit. They are good for nothing liars.

Those mainstream politicans are the elected representatives of the people. Under the terms of the constitution, those elected representatives are the only ones authorised to represent the people in international and/or EU negotiations.

As such, you are essentially insulting the entire electorate with comments like these.