yes to jobs...

brianthebard · 09-10-2009 12:29am #1

Is already being proven as the lie it always was. http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/10/aer-lingus-after-lisbon-the-job-massacre-continues/

Aer Lingus are to cut 700 jobs after pushing for a yes vote. They delayed this information to prevent it impacting the referendum. What SIPTU was doing supporting the treaty I don't know.

Max Power1 · 09-10-2009 12:34am

BUt dont you see, the government gets whatever result it wants by whatever means necessary!

The above sign is just a tool to generate pro lisbon votes

Rb · 09-10-2009 12:35am

Fair play to them.

P. Breathnach · 09-10-2009 12:35am

brianthebard wrote: »

... They delayed this information to prevent it impacting the referendum...

A claim as serious as this needs some backing. A Joe Higgins assertion is not sufficient.

brianthebard · 09-10-2009 12:47am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A claim as serious as this needs some backing. A Joe Higgins assertion is not sufficient.

Do you think he had no idea before Friday that 700 people were going to be culled from his company and that he was going to implement a new policy of cutting pay and benefits? That's clearly the sort of thing you just decide on a whim right?

Red Sleeping Beauty · 09-10-2009 12:58am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A claim as serious as this needs some backing. A Joe Higgins assertion is not sufficient.

But a Brian Cowen one is ?

On this "yes to jobs" thing, it's going to be a great irony (or maybe tragedy) when unemployment soars, when social welfare is cut and when min wage is cut. There'll be the usual wishy washy excuse from predictable quarters with enough obfuscation to quell any tension.

meglome · 09-10-2009 1:03am

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you think he had no idea before Friday that 700 people were going to be culled from his company and that he was going to implement a new policy of cutting pay and benefits? That's clearly the sort of thing you just decide on a whim right?

I think that Aer Lingus were and are losing quite a lot of money. I think that anyone who thought there wasn't going to be job losses was very naive indeed. In case anyone wasn't aware the raison d'être of businesses is to make money, if they don't they will eventually close down. I think that after all the lies the socialists and Joe Higgins told in the Lisbon campaign I wouldn't believe a word they say.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

But a Brian Cowen one is ?

What claim did Brian Cowan make?

meglome · 09-10-2009 1:06am

Max Power1 wrote: »

BUt dont you see, the government gets whatever result it wants by whatever means necessary!

The above sign is just a tool to generate pro lisbon votes

Government makes vague statement. Some voters decide to believe it means recession will be over and jobs for everyone (mostly No voters for some reason). Silly voters, a vague statement is just a vague statement of what could or might happen.

Max Power1 · 09-10-2009 1:10am

not vague.

Yes to jobs is as clear as it gets

whatisayis · 09-10-2009 1:16am

meglome wrote: »

Government makes vague statement. Some voters decide to believe it means recession will be over and jobs for everyone (mostly No voters for some reason). Silly voters, a vague statement is just a vague statement of what could or might happen.

Sorry but the government made a strong statement. Vote yes for jobs, vote yes for the economy. Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

meglome · 09-10-2009 1:16am

Max Power1 wrote: »

not vague.

Yes to jobs is as clear as it gets

Well you must be reading between the lines there because 'Yes to job' appears to me to be very vague and lacking any specifics. Thankfully I voted on the treaty for reasons that are all contained within the treaty.

Scofflaw · 09-10-2009 1:17am

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

Max Power1 · 09-10-2009 1:21am

meglome wrote: »

Well you must be reading between the lines there because 'Yes to job' appears to me to be very vague and lacking any specifics. Thankfully I voted on the treaty for reasons that are all contained within the treaty.

Its pretty straightforward tbh. Yes (affirmative) to(preposition) Jobs (noun). Yes to jobs. Am I missing something where that isnt clearly stating something. How can that be vague

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

I dont think it would immediately prevent job losses or lead to jobs. But the slogan as mentioned, Yes To Jobs, if taken literally, would seem to indicate that jobs were promised for a yes vote. Maybe not immendiately though.

meglome · 09-10-2009 1:23am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

I doubt it too. It's a reasonable point to bring up regarding the veracity of the slogans in the Lisbon campaign, no matter how vague these slogans really were. What I don't understand is why they keep bringing up the same point over and over as if slogans without any specifics whatsoever will somehow get more specific.

meglome · 09-10-2009 1:28am

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its pretty straightforward tbh. Yes (affirmative) to(preposition) Jobs (noun). Yes to jobs. Am I missing something where that isnt clearly stating something. How can that be vague

I'm not saying there will be no jobs. I'm saying a stupid slogan on a poster or the like is just a slogan, it has zero specifics. Now I believe the Yes vote will lead to jobs, the cost of our borrowing has fallen plus it has helped the stock market.

Max Power1 wrote: »

I dont think it would immediately prevent job losses or lead to jobs. But the slogan as mentioned, Yes To Jobs, if taken literally, would seem to indicate that jobs were promised for a yes vote. Maybe not immendiately though.

So what's your point then?

View · 09-10-2009 1:31am

brianthebard wrote: »

Is already being proven as the lie it always was. http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/10/aer-lingus-after-lisbon-the-job-massacre-continues/

Aer Lingus are to cut 700 jobs after pushing for a yes vote. They delayed this information to prevent it impacting the referendum. What SIPTU was doing supporting the treaty I don't know.

Given the size of the majority in the referendum, whether Aer Lingus made this announcement before or after ther referendum would have made little difference to the result.

Face it - the No side wasn't defeated, it was humiliated.

kryogen · 09-10-2009 1:33am

meglome wrote: »

I doubt it too. It's a reasonable point to bring up regrading the veracity of the slogans in the Lisbon campaign, no matter how vague these slogans really were. What I don't understand is why they keep brining up the same point over and over as if the slogans will get any less vague.

now look, i understand your point, i really do, i didnt vote based on slogans! but if you are unable to even admit to the simple fact that the government and other parties on the yes side made deliberate decisions to influence people in terms of their yes to jobs slogans then you are either very deluded, or simply from another planet

the signs were honestly not vague, of course they are not legally binding or anything, but they are certainly not vague, they implied a yes vote would create jobs.....there is no way around that, and of course they may create jobs in the next few months! but dont try say the signs were vague, it is hard to be vague with a sign that said YES TO JOBS!

K-9 · 09-10-2009 1:33am

So a No to Lisbon would have stopped this?

Joe Higgins, SF et al said a Yes to Lisbon would lead to job losses.

How would a No stop the job losses?

Max Power1 · 09-10-2009 1:34am

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying there will be no jobs. I'm saying a stupid slogan on a poster or the like is just a slogan, it has zero specifics. Now I believe the Yes vote will lead to jobs, the cost of our borrowing has fallen plus it has helped the stock market.

So what's your point then?

My point was that it is straightforward what "yes to jobs" means.

K-9 · 09-10-2009 1:34am

PS. Lisbon hasn't come into effect yet.

Maybe wait a year lads.

You do realise this same arguments means a No doubled unemployment?

whatisayis · 09-10-2009 1:35am

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying there will be no jobs. I'm saying a stupid slogan on a poster or the like is just a slogan, it has zero specifics. Now I believe the Yes vote will lead to jobs, the cost of our borrowing has fallen plus it has helped the stock market.

So what's your point then?

The cost of our borrowing has been falling since July. Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

kryogen · 09-10-2009 1:36am

K-9 wrote: »

So a No to Lisbon would have stopped this?

no

Joe Higgins, SF et al said a Yes to Lisbon would lead to job losses.

How would a No stop the job losses?

neither decision could prevent job losses, untill we turn the corner this naturally going to happen!

.

K-9 · 09-10-2009 1:37am

kryogen wrote: »

.

But we voted No, Unemployment more than doubled?

kryogen · 09-10-2009 1:39am

K-9 wrote: »

But we voted No, Unemployment more than doubled?

sorry now but im tired and am gonna need a clarification here?

actually if you mean that we voted no the last time and this happened after it i think you might find that the two things have nothing to do with each other....economy collapsing sort of aided the rising unemployment, not a no vote

K-9 · 09-10-2009 1:43am

kryogen wrote: »

sorry now but im tired and am gonna need a clarification here?

actually if you mean that we voted no the last time and this happened after it i think you might find that the two things have nothing to do with each other....economy collapsing sort of aided the rising unemployment, not a no vote

YEP. Nail on head time. :eek:

I love the ironing though.

kryogen · 09-10-2009 1:47am

K-9 wrote: »

YEP. Nail on head time. :eek:

I love the ironing though.

oh i see, you are trying to be clever........very good. unfortunaly there is not much ironing here, wrong choice of phrase my friend

brianthebard · 09-10-2009 1:51am

K-9 wrote: »

YEP. Nail on head time. :eek:

I love the ironing though.

I don't remember the No campaign being run mainly on the grounds that a No vote would end unemployment, but the Yes campaign this time round was explicitly run with the messages yes to jobs and yes to recovery. However the Lisbon treaty could not deliver these things.
What I find funny is that the referendum is over yet Yes campaigners here cannot let the mask slip for even a second and admit that the yes vote was won on fear and scaremongering, or that most of the yes campaign was pretty poor lcd stuff.

K-9 · 09-10-2009 1:53am

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't remember the No campaign being run mainly on the grounds that a No vote would end unemployment, but the Yes campaign this time round was explicitly run with the messages yes to jobs and yes to recovery. However the Lisbon treaty could not deliver these things.
What I find funny is that the referendum is over yet Yes campaigners here cannot let the mask slip for even a second and admit that the yes vote was won on fear and scaremongering, or that most of the yes campaign was pretty poor lcd stuff.

Well, I started a whole new thread on this, as it deserves it.

I do remember Higgins et al saying it would lead to job losses.

Keith186 · 09-10-2009 1:54am

View wrote: »

Given the size of the majority in the referendum, whether Aer Lingus made this announcement before or after ther referendum would have made little difference to the result.

Face it - the No side wasn't defeated, it was humiliated.

Given the size of the majority 14 months ago, i.e. a majority in Lisbon I, there wasn't really the need for a second referendum after the first one.

In fairness you would have to admit the 'Yes' side should be more humiliated and if it wasn't for 'the recession' which kicked off after the 'No' side legitimately prospered we would have had a tighter result possibly in either favour but most likely a 'No' again. Grow up and open your eyes and don't be one of the sheep who is easily swayed to yes or no and look at the big picture.

In reality the 'Yes' side should count themselves lucky that a lot of people or people they know lost their jobs but they all seem to be talking like politicians now.

Inevitably there will be job creation down the line following either outcome of the referendum so a 'No for Jobs' slogan is equally as valid a slogan as the 'Yes to Jobs' one.

Both are nonsense.

View · 09-10-2009 1:57am

brianthebard wrote: »

What I find funny is that the referendum is over yet No campaigners here cannot let the mask slip for even a second and admit that the no vote was won on fear and scaremongering, or that most of the no campaign was pretty poor lcd stuff.

I corrected that for you. Let's face it, there was hardly a no campaigner that even made the pretence of trying to be truthful.

It might explain why the electorate humiliated them at the end of the day.

K-9 · 09-10-2009 2:01am

No wonder FF are in power!

yes to jobs...

Comments