yes to jobs...

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

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

2000+ job losses since Monday this week. Including 300 from "Vote yes for jobs" Intel corp.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

2000+ job losses since Monday this week. Including 300 from "Vote yes for jobs" Intel corp.

And what exactly was the vote on?

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

And what exactly was the vote on?

the vote was on a treaty

did you see any signs directly related to the treaty on either side of the campaign?

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

And what exactly was the vote on?

The vote was on the amendment to our constitution.

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

the vote was on a treaty

did you see any signs directly related to the treaty on either side of the campaign?

Blame the Poles and the Czechs then, seeing as it hasn't been passed. Seems to be a common No side tactic.

View

Keith186 wrote: »

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.

A majority of 3 in 100 voters acheived after an unprecedented spend by the No campaigners accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of mis-quotations and outright lies. It was clear from the post-referenda analysis that few No voters were actually voting on Lisbon itself, rather they were voting based on the deluded fantasies of COIR and Libertas.

Keith186 wrote: »

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.

Once the EU leaders gave guarentees to the effect that the No sides lies had no basis in reality, the game was effectively up for the No campaign. As it happens, the result clearly shows the electorate was prepared to hold their noses and vote to be on the same side as the highly unpopular Government politicans, rather than line up with the No's nonsense again.

brianthebard

View wrote: »

I corrected that for you.

Please don't do that, its not funny or clever.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

Blame the Poles and the Czechs then, seeing as it hasn't been passed. Seems to be a common No side tactic.

so that was no then to the direct question you were asked?

im not even gonna get into the absudity of what you tried to deflect not having an answer with

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

Blame the Poles and the Czechs then, seeing as it hasn't been passed. Seems to be a common No side tactic.

Interesting. Can you link me to any yes side website that mentions the Irish constitution?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

not vague.

Yes to jobs is as clear as it gets

Let's put it this way: anyone who voted yes because they thought it would prevent these job losses is retarded and anyone who thought that the government was saying that a yes vote would prevent these job losses is equally retarded

kryogen

View wrote: »

A majority of 3 in 100 voters acheived after an unprecedented spend by the No campaigners accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of mis-quotations and outright lies. It was clear from the post-referenda analysis that few No voters were actually voting on Lisbon itself, rather they were voting based on the deluded fantasies of COIR and Libertas.

So to your reasoning then you reckn the irish people are idiots who dont know what way to vote unless they are led by the hand, and are unable of looking beyond campaign talk to decide something for themselves.......yet you are sure they knew what they were doing this time? contradictory tbh

and considering the amount the yes side spent on the campaign this time its foolish to introduce that into the debate

Once the EU leaders gave guarentees to the effect that the No sides lies had no basis in reality, the game was effectively up for the No campaign. As it happens, the result clearly shows the electorate was prepared to hold their noses and vote to be on the same side as the highly unpopular Government politicans, rather than line up with the No's nonsense again.

the no campaign was ran absolutely terribly and helped the yes side no end. this is obvious, some of them were actually the best weapon the yes campaigners had going for them!

.

View

brianthebard wrote: »

Please don't do that, its not funny or clever.

No, but it is true. To my mind, most of the No campaigners realised they wouldn't persuade the electorate to vote No if they tried arguing based on the treaty itself, so they opted instead to substitute fantasies and lies for good arguments.

And as can be seen, once the electorate cop on to that strategy, it ultimately backfires.

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

the vote was on a treaty

did you see any signs directly related to the treaty on either side of the campaign?

Neither. The No side had some on what they thought was in the Treaty, last time and this time. SF, Libertas and Coir.

The Yes Campaign posters were a joke last time, universally agreed.

Look, they are posters!

whatisayis wrote: »

Interesting. Can you link me to any yes side website that mentions the Irish constitution?

Why would they? I know it was a big deal with No groups, but not with Yes Groups. No Groups regarded Lisbon as an attack on the Constitution. Yes Groups and parties seen it was largely irrelevant compared to previous Referenda.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let's put it this way: anyone who voted yes because they thought it would prevent these job losses is retarded and anyone who thought that the government was saying that a yes vote would prevent these job losses is equally retarded

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

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

Neither. The No side had some on what they thought was in the Treaty, last time and this time. SF, Libertas and Coir.

The Yes Campaign posters were a joke last time, universally agreed.

Exatly, my point is that neither side debated the merits of the treaty or tried to really give the public information on the thing they were actually voting on!

it was like a bloody US presidential election, all catch phrases and bull**** slogans

no substance

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

Why would they? I know it was a big deal with No groups, but not with Yes Groups. No Groups regarded Lisbon as an attack on the Constitution. Yes Groups and parties seen it was largely irrelevant compared to previous Referenda.

Maybe they should have had read the Lisbon Treaty?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

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

Well clearly it's not because you have taken an extremely literal and strict interpretation that only a retarded person would actually believe would happen if they voted yes.

Since you have taken an interpretation that only a retarded person would believe, would you not consider that maybe it wasn't meant in the way you're saying?

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

Exatly, my point is that neither side debated the merits of the treaty or tried to really give the public information on the thing they were actually voting on!

it was like a bloody US presidential election, all catch phrases and bull**** slogans

no substance

I don't think you'll find much disagreement on this.

What happened was, as you admit, the No side campaigned and won on nothing based on the Treaty.

The Yes side reacted. O'Leary negated Ganley. Most people hate O'Leary but most aren't members of Unions. Mostly Public Sector workers are.

Really, your problem seems to be with our Referenda laws, which remember, achieved a No and Yes.

The underlying problem isn't which way you vote, it's the system.

View

kryogen wrote: »

So to your reasoning then you reckn the irish people are idiots who dont know what way to vote unless they are led by the hand, and are unable of looking beyond campaign talk to decide something for themselves

No, I don't reckon the people are idiots. Read the post-referenda analysis from Lisbon I. It speaks for itself. Few No voters were hardline No voters, most were responding to the campaign of lies and half-truths from the likes of COIR, Libertas etc.

You don't think, it is a concidence that the same fantasies about neutrality, abortion etc. are re-used in each referenda campaign by the No side, do you? Even when it was clear they were wrong in the previous 6 referenda?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Maybe they should have had read the Lisbon Treaty?

Yep, that was the difference. Come on!

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well clearly it's not because you have taken an extremely literal and strict interpretation that only a retarded person would actually believe would happen if they voted yes.

This goes further than a poster slogan, this was the main if not the only platform on which the Yes side (and it was across parties and groups) campaigned for a Yes vote. Of course it was something that could not be delivered, so once again it becomes clear that despite claims otherwise Yes campaigners used scaremongering tactics and promised fantasies which had no basis in reality. So in the coming weeks the country will wake up to the fact that it has swallowed a lot of lies, and where will we be then.

Keith186

View wrote: »

A majority of 3 in 100 voters acheived after an unprecedented spend by the No campaigners accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of mis-quotations and outright lies. It was clear from the post-referenda analysis that few No voters were actually voting on Lisbon itself, rather they were voting based on the deluded fantasies of COIR and Libertas.



Once the EU leaders gave guarentees to the effect that the No sides lies had no basis in reality, the game was effectively up for the No campaign. As it happens, the result clearly shows the electorate was prepared to hold their noses and vote to be on the same side as the highly unpopular Government politicans, rather than line up with the No's nonsense again.

A majority of 3 in 100 voters

. Elaborate.

An unprecedented spend? Yes side spent more this time so does that mean if there was a 3rd referendum whoever spent most would win?

Guarantees or no guarantees it was the recession fear factor that won the vote not the yes side, not the 'no' lies being p1ss poor that lost it. I'm not looking to argue with you but it would seem to me that the recession swayed the 20% or so of the voters to change their mind this time.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well clearly it's not because you have taken an extremely literal and strict interpretation that only a retarded person would actually believe would happen if they voted yes.

Since you have taken an interpretation that only a retarded person would believe, would you not consider that maybe it wasn't meant in the way you're saying?

So "vote Yes for jobs" means what exactly?

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

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

What's your point?

Johnnnybravo

The only jobs this pile a **** was ever going to produce was a few jobs taking down the signs around the country. But as usual the eejits in this country went in and voted yes:rolleyes:

K-9

Keith186 wrote: »

. Elaborate.

An unprecedented spend? Yes side spent more this time so does that mean if there was a 3rd referendum whoever spent most would win?

Guarantees or no guarantees it was the recession fear factor that won the vote not the yes side, not the 'no' lies being p1ss poor that lost it. I'm not looking to argue with you but it would seem to me that the recession swayed the 20% or so of the voters to change their mind this time.

The Guarantees where important.

Taxation especially so became a Non issue. Abortion and Neutrality less do as the usual lot will vote No on this issue.

Our CT is extremely important.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think you'll find much disagreement on this.

What happened was, as you admit, the No side campaigned and won on nothing based on the Treaty.

The Yes side reacted. O'Leary negated Ganley. Most people hate O'Leary but most aren't members of Unions. Mostly Public Sector workers are.

Really, your problem seems to be with our Referenda laws, which remember, achieved a No and Yes.

The underlying problem isn't which way you vote, it's the system.

no problem with the system pal, no problem accepting a yes vote, the people voted it and i stand by the peoples voice (could be petty and add in an unlike some comment, but i wont!) i dont think you really know what my problems with this subject are so we dont need to talk about it

View wrote: »

No, I don't reckon the people are idiots. Read the post-referenda analysis from Lisbon I. It speaks for itself. Few No voters were hardline No voters, most were responding to the campaign of lies and half-truths from the likes of COIR, Libertas etc.

You don't think, it is a concidence that the same fantasies about neutrality, abortion etc. are re-used in each referenda campaign by the No side, do you? Even when it was clear they were wrong in the previous 6 referenda?

i have said more then once i am not affiliated with any of the main campaigners for the No side, they were ridiculous and its no wonder that some CTers are questioning wether they were just shills for the yes side

Neither side did enough to give the people the information they deserved, but the while the yes campaign stuck to nice slogans and scaremongering (you dont have to refute this, i assume your opinion is different, fair enough i respect your views)

anyway, while the yes side stuck to that, the main no campaign was based on stupid slogans and scaremongering that had lots of holes in it!

they lost the vote rather then the yes side winning it imo

Guarantees we received are worthless on a side point, none are written into the treaty and they are merely a pr exercise, good one at that.... they may or may not hold up. only time will tell

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

no problem with the system pal, no problem accepting a yes vote, the people voted it and i stand by the peoples voice (could be petty and add in an unlike some comment, but i wont!) i dont think you really know what my problems with this subject are so we dont need to talk about it

l

Well Pal, maybe you can say more. We can't really discuss much if you aren't going to say your problems. (sounds like an American TV Sitcom!)

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, that was the difference. Come on!

What we, the Irish electorate, have just voted on has nothing to do with the economy or jobs etc, etc.

What we have voted on is the relinquishing of the Irish electorate to the Orieachtas the power of decision.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

Well Pal, maybe you can say more. We can't really discuss much if you aren't going to say your problems. (sounds like an American TV Sitcom!)

whats the point?!? its over, my point of view is irrelevant to what this thread was actually originally about and my reasons for voting No dont need to be discussed anymore. as i said, its over. who cares why i voted no!