yes to jobs...

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

So "vote Yes for jobs" means what exactly?

Yes for jobs means that a yes vote will help the economy more than a no vote. Of course it doesn't mean an instant end to the recession, we'll probably never even attribute the effects to the treaty. The cost of borrowing has dropped and the stock markets have risen since the yes vote, that's a few jobs that won't have to be cut right there. When a company decides to locate here, we won't know for sure if isolating ourselves and showing that we don't share the same goals as our neighbours would have caused them to locate elsewhere and when a company doesn't pull out or doesn't cut back on investment, we won't know if they would have had we rejected a benign and beneficial treaty for no good reason and we don't know for sure what the effect of throwing the whole future of the EU into doubt would have been. The economy is a very temperamental and unpredictable beast, anything can upset it and since there was no good reason to reject this treaty, I see no reason to risk finding out what might have happened

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

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!

OK.

kryogen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The cost of borrowing has dropped and the stock markets have risen since the yes vote,

this has been dealt with already

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes for jobs means that a yes vote will help the economy more than a no vote. Of course it doesn't mean an instant end to the recession, we'll probably never even attribute the effects to the treaty. The cost of borrowing has dropped and the stock markets have risen since the yes vote, that's a few jobs that won't have to be cut right there.

You don't get to claim the yes vote is responsible for an upturn in the stock market but also claim that the yes to jobs campaign was not to to be taken seriously.

Sam Vimes

kryogen wrote: »

this has been dealt with already

In what way? Did people decide that it had nothing to do with the yes vote?

kryogen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In what way? Did people decide that it had nothing to do with the yes vote?

yawn, im sorry but its too late for me to get into this one.....

make of it what you will but im off to bed! guess you win

wait brianthebard seems to know what im talking about maybe so chat with him about it!

View

kryogen wrote: »

.

Keith186 wrote: »

. Elaborate.

An unprecedented spend?

I was referring to Lisbon I. Some of the estimates of Libertas' spend (based on advertising) had it as being larger than the combined total of FF, FG and Labour put together.

Keith186 wrote: »

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

Possibly - advertising does have a strong effect on the results.

Keith186 wrote: »

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.

Once the No side's lies were underminded, there was no convincing reason for the large percentage of the No side who voted No in Lisbon I to continue to vote No in Lisbon II. As such, the No side was probably going to lost anyway in Lisbon II, the only question was by how much?

Even if you claim a recession factor, you run into a problem which is there is almost No one on the No side who the average voter would trust to run the economy in any circumstances.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

You don't get to claim the yes vote is responsible for an upturn in the stock market but also claim that the yes to jobs campaign was not to to be taken seriously.

I didn't say it wasn't to be taken seriously, I said it wasn't meant to be taken as "no further job losses, 100,000 jobs for Monday, recessions over!!!". The effects the yes vote will have are small things like that upturn and that's the type of thing the slogans were talking about. It's only people on the no side who ever suggested otherwise

If you check my post history you'll see this is what I've been saying all along in the face of people stubbornly insisting it must mean an instant end to the recession or it's a lie

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't say it wasn't to be taken seriously, I said it wasn't meant to be taken as "no further job losses, 100,000 jobs for Monday, recessions over!!!". The effects the yes vote will have are small things like that upturn and that's the type of thing the slogans were talking about. It's only people on the no side who ever suggested otherwise

That's not what the Yes campaign said. As previously stated, yes to jobs can only be interpreted in a few very limited ways. You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

If you check my post history you'll see this is what I've been saying all along in the face of people stubbornly insisting it must mean an instant end to the recession or it's a lie

Convenient for you then that the search function isn't working huh?

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

Convenient for you then that the search function isn't working huh?

And it will be back?

Typical No tactics.

Maybe it's a NWO tactic?

I thought I'd have a new shiny job by now.

I'm p*ssed of.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not what the Yes campaign said. As previously stated, yes to jobs can only be interpreted in a few very limited ways. You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

There are at least two possible interpretations:

1. The reasonable one I've given
2. The clearly ludicrous one that only a retard would believe that you've given

brianthebard wrote: »

Convenient for you then that the search function isn't working huh?

You can still search using google by sticking site:boards.ie at the end, eg: http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=1Dl&q=confidence+uncertainty+sam+vimes+site%3Aboards.ie&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62330072&postcount=69
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62222737&postcount=10
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62450636&postcount=34
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62414931&postcount=3743
http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62403885&postcount=34
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62450725&postcount=98
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62416268&postcount=3754
http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62204721&postcount=31
http://blogs.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62336132&postcount=111
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62201251&postcount=31
http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62232343&postcount=10
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62362735&postcount=45
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62362519&postcount=36
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62243486&postcount=2790
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62246066&postcount=35

I could go on for quite a while longer but you get the point. It gets brought up a lot

RandomName2

Suppose a FF poster said 'Vote FF to abolish stamp-duty'

FF are elected.

They increase stamp duty.

They claim that their poster was ambiguous.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Suppose a FF poster said 'Vote FF to abolish stamp-duty'

FF are elected.

They increase stamp duty.

They claim that their poster was ambiguous.

That's not ambiguous, "yes to jobs" is. Stamp duty is also something they have direct and sole control over, jobs aren't. I can safely say that there is not one person sitting at home right now watching this news story and scratching their head in confusion because they honestly thought there would be no more job losses if they voted yes, that would be ridiculous. Of course they weren't saying that because there is absolutely no way a yes vote or a no vote could have stopped these losses and everybody in the country knows that

The only people who take such a literal interpretation of the slogan are no voters who then hold the government to this ridiculous interpretation and when they obviously cannot live up to it because it's physically impossible to live up to the standards set by no voters, they get to call them liars, which is of course the reason for taking that interpretation in the first place.

Hydrosylator

This is only what happens after we let it through.
Wait until it gets ratified.

IBEC are not your friend. Businesses don't increase profits by employing more people and paying better wages. They do the opposite.

Sam Vimes

Hydrosylator wrote: »

This is only what happens after we let it through.
Wait until it gets ratified.

IBEC are not your friend. Businesses don't increase profits by employing more people and paying better wages. They do the opposite.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Are you saying that ratifying Lisbon allows these businesses to cut staff and wages more than they would have done previously?

And do you see no connection between a general upturn in the economy and an improvement in the conditions in these companies?

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Are you saying that ratifying Lisbon allows these businesses to cut staff and wages more than they would have done previously?

And do you see no connection between a general upturn in the economy and an improvement in the conditions in these companies?

Sam dont mind him

Im in regular contact with few other small business in an incubation center, for first time this year people are actually smiling

and im not sure whether its related or not but there are job notices being put up :0

going into science/engineering was best decision i ever made

brianthebard

K-9 wrote: »

And it will be back?

Typical No tactics.

Maybe it's a NWO tactic?

I thought I'd have a new shiny job by now.

I'm p*ssed of.

I was having a laugh ffs. Typical No tactics seems to be your standard response to anything, do you really think that it negates any argument?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are at least two possible interpretations:

[*]The reasonable one I've given
[*]The clearly ludicrous one that only a retard would believe that you've given

Could you stop calling people/me retarded? Its pretty annoying and its a really poor argument. Vincent Browne questioned Brian Lenihan on his show about just this issue, is VB also retarded? I'm going to ask you again, why do you feel able to attribute a stock market upturn to the Yes vote, but will not under any circumstances believe that job losses show that the Yes campaign was wrong? And how could you possibly believe that yes to jobs is ambiguous?

hatrickpatrick

Why don't we get a nationwide survey done in which we ask people why they voted yes, and if they say "for jobs" or "for the economy" we put out some clarifications?

Maybe we could even get some more legal guarantees from the EU:

• Nothing in the Lisbon Treaty has any impact whatsoever on jobs or the creation thereof
• There is no possibility of any country being removed from the EU as no mechanism exists to do so

Etc.

Hydrosylator

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Are you saying that ratifying Lisbon allows these businesses to cut staff and wages more than they would have done previously?

God no, I'd never say that. It just (once passed) better enables them to compete. and as all we all know, businesses compete by paying higher wages and giving loads of people permanent positions.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And do you see no connection between a general upturn in the economy and an improvement in the conditions in these companies?

Are we talking about the economy or the market here? Because the first involves us all, and the second involves a tiny percentage of us. I know two people who benefit from the market, one is a stockbroker and the other is a banker. Everyone else is still in the ****. The economy (rather than the market) hasn't improved at all yet, there's already a net loss in employment forecast since Lisbon was ratified, based on Aer Lingus alone.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

Could you stop calling people/me retarded? Its pretty annoying and its a really poor argument. Vincent Browne questioned Brian Lenihan on his show about just this issue, is VB also retarded? I'm going to ask you again, why do you feel able to attribute a stock market upturn to the Yes vote, but will not under any circumstances believe that job losses show that the Yes campaign was wrong? And how could you possibly believe that yes to jobs is ambiguous?

I'm not calling you retarded and I know you don't actually believe that a yes vote could have saved these jobs because no one in their right mind would believe that. What I think is that in your desire to call the government liars you have convinced yourself that this is what they meant but the idea that these jobs could have been saved by a yes vote is so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly have been what they meant. I'm basically trying to get you to let go of the straw man that you have convinced youself of.

I really don't want to go through a few months of every bit of bad news being posted up along with a "where are these jobs then?" type line while all the good news is dismissed with a "that would have happened anyway" type line. Neither of us know what would have happened anyway, all I know is I'm glad I never have to find out because I'm living in an Ireland that voted yes

Sam Vimes

Hydrosylator wrote: »

God no, I'd never say that. It just (once passed) better enables them to compete. and as all we all know, businesses compete by paying higher wages and giving loads of people permanent positions.

I think I can detect the sarcasm there so which parts of the treaty allow them to do anything differently to how the were before?

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Are we talking about the economy or the market here? Because the first involves us all, and the second involves a tiny percentage of us. I know two people who benefit from the market, one is a stockbroker and the other is a banker. Everyone else is still in the ****. The economy (rather than the market) hasn't improved at all yet, there's already a net loss in employment forecast since Lisbon was ratified, based on Aer Lingus alone.

We're talking about both.

Max Power1

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 how was I meant to interpret "YES TO JOBS" then

What other possible meaning is there?

And lay off the retarded comments please? You may not agree with me but theres no need for personal insults

Max Power1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why don't we get a nationwide survey done in which we ask people why they voted yes, and if they say "for jobs" or "for the economy" we put out some clarifications?

Maybe we could even get some more legal guarantees from the EU:

• Nothing in the Lisbon Treaty has any impact whatsoever on jobs or the creation thereof
• There is no possibility of any country being removed from the EU as no mechanism exists to do so

Etc.

This would be a good idea, as they re ran the election becasuse people voted no for the "wrong" reason last time. Lets see if they will do the same for the people that voted yes for the wrong reasons :P I wont hold my breath

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not calling you retarded and I know you don't actually believe that a yes vote could have saved these jobs because no one in their right mind would believe that. What I think is that in your desire to call the government liars you have convinced yourself that this is what they meant but the idea that these jobs could have been saved by a yes vote is so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly have been what they meant. I'm basically trying to get you to let go of the straw man that you have convinced youself of.

I really don't want to go through a few months of every bit of bad news being posted up along with a "where are these jobs then?" type line while all the good news is dismissed with a "that would have happened anyway" type line. Neither of us know what would have happened anyway, all I know is I'm glad I never have to find out because I'm living in an Ireland that voted yes

That doesn't answer any of my questions, about VB or the stock market or any of that. Do you want me to make them clearer for you? I'd really rather you answer the questions. Like I said Vincent Browne questioned Lenihan about this very issue, was that also a strawman? Lenihan never said it was, perhaps he didn't know the phrase.

Scofflaw

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

Agreed.
And at any rate the "yes for jobs" and "yes to recovery" slogans I both read as ,the EU has been good for Ireland thus far in that respect historically,lets give it a thumbs up-We need their help and support on this one etc etc
Other readings of those akin to what the op is suggesting is just delusion in my opinion.

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

So how was I meant to interpret "YES TO JOBS" then

What other possible meaning is there?

And lay off the retarded comments please? You may not agree with me but theres no need for personal insults

Again, I'm not calling anyone retarded, I'm calling the fictional people who actually believed that these jobs could have been saved by a yes vote retarded. No one here believes that.
edit:I'm saying the same thing as Scofflaw except I'm saying retarded instead of feeble-minded

See my dozen or so links where I explained the context on the previous page for what it means

brianthebard wrote: »

That doesn't answer any of my questions, about VB or the stock market or any of that. Do you want me to make them clearer for you? I'd really rather you answer the questions. Like I said Vincent Browne questioned Lenihan about this very issue, was that also a strawman? Lenihan never said it was, perhaps he didn't know the phrase.

Yes when Vincent Browne said it it was also a straw man because it wasn't meant that way regardless of who was asking them if it was. He was also taking an extremely literal interpretation of the slogan that is physically impossible to live up to

Hydrosylator

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I can detect the sarcasm there so which parts of the treaty allow them to do anything differently to how the were before?

I'm not going through all that again. Besides which I'm sure you've already heard the supporting arguments in this context,whether you agree with them or not. "Yeah I've heard them and they're all LIES!!!111" Yeah, yeah. Ask me arse.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We're talking about both.

I'm sorry I must be in the wrong thread, I thought we were talking about jobs and how, it at all, their availability corresponds to Lisbon.

As it stands, I don't believe ratifying Lisbon will get us jobs, and I don't believe that Lisbon coming into place will get us jobs. A cursory glance over the last week's news shows a net loss of jobs in Ireland.

This Thatcher/Reagan style view of "What's good for business is good for everybody", which appears to be in vogue now, didn't work for them and won't work for us. Trickle-down economics consistently fails.

Sam Vimes

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Yeah, yeah. Ask me arse.

Right so

bonkey

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm going to ask you again, why do you feel able to attribute a stock market upturn to the Yes vote, but will not under any circumstances believe that job losses show that the Yes campaign was wrong?

Stock markets reflect changes in outlook as much as changes in current situation.

Companies can announce profit and have their stocks drop because its less then was expected, or because an earnings warning for the future was issued.
Companies can run losses, and have stocks climb, because it was less then expected, or because a rosy outlook can be seen.

Its worth buying stock while its cheap for a company that you believe will do increasingly better over the coming period.

Jobs, on the other hand, tend to be far more rooted in the here and now. Except when personnel are problematic to replace, companies don't hold on to extra staff just because they believe that in a year or two they'll need some or all of them....especially when they're running a loss and need to cut costs.

ETA:

Putting that in context, "Yes to Jobs" would mean "Yes to a better outlook for our economy, which in turn will lead to a better outlook for Jobs".

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again, I'm not calling anyone retarded, I'm calling the fictional people who actually believed that these jobs could have been saved by a yes vote retarded. No one here believes that.
edit:I'm saying the same thing as Scofflaw except I'm saying retarded instead of feeble-minded

See my dozen or so links where I explained the context on the previous page for what it means

Retarded has a negative connotation. You didnt call me a retard? See what you said to me would indicate otherwise. (Or maybe I was meant to read that in a way different to what is written, and I cant because Im retarded)

Sam Vimes wrote:

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?

It says "yes to jobs" in clear black on yellow, so the electorate is meant to automatically know not to believe what the pro treaty side said? How do we then believe them on the other promises about the treaty, including the so called "guarantees" for instance