yes to jobs...

meglome · 09-10-2009 3:51pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes if you read the link in my first post you'll see this is the case.

According to Joe Higgins...(who after the Lisbon campaign I have very little faith in).

Last week CEO Christoph Mueller cynically circulated an e-mail to all staff promoting the Lisbon treaty. In it he made reference to a Yes vote securing the future of the company and employment in Ireland. He made these claims knowing that within a few days he was going to announce massive job losses and further cuts in pay

Aer Lingus is losing it's pants at the moment. Anyone who thought every job was safe is living in cloud cuckoo land.

What do you think Aer Lingus should do? Keep the jobs and go bust perhaps?

oscarBravo · 09-10-2009 4:03pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes if you read the link in my first post you'll see this is the case.

I stopped reading when I hit the tired catchphrase "race to the bottom".

Did the alleged memo claim that a "yes" vote would prevent these job losses?

K-9 · 09-10-2009 4:07pm

Seems to be mostly based on "Joe Higgins said".

Joe plays his base very well as seen by this thread.

squod · 09-10-2009 4:14pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

my issue is that on the day the treaty was passed, the government distanced themselves from the claims (clear as day claims) that they made during the campaign. These two claims singlehandedly won them the referendum

+1

turgon · 09-10-2009 5:20pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I stopped reading when I hit the tired catchphrase "race to the bottom".

I didnt even get that far. I only got to http://www.joehiggins before stopping.

View · 09-10-2009 5:31pm

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Unless like me and hundreds of thousands more, you have no pension.

Well, I would hope you qualify for the state pension at least. The point though was that "the stock market" isn't some abstract entity that has nothing to do with our lives. For better or worse it does.

Sam Vimes · 09-10-2009 6:05pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

my issue is that on the day the treaty was passed, the government distanced themselves from the claims (clear as day claims) that they made during the campaign. These two claims singlehandedly won them the referendum

I going to use a sentence that has been used against me by no advocates. I think it's highly presumptuous of you to assume that you know why people voted a certain way.

And I have a national survey backing me up when I said it

Liam Byrne · 09-10-2009 6:28pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

Now youre being pedantic! What I meant was on the yes side, it was those 2 claims that won them the referendum. The no side basically comitted harikiri with those Coir posters, and I feel for logical no voters like Joe Higgins having to deal with this rather than the issues at hand.

Not being pedantic at all.....you said that the posters single handedly won the referendum. I didn't use that phrase - you did.

For that to be true, the €1.84 posters would have had to have no impact. ZERO.

Otherwise, the €1.84 had an impact (which I think is true) and the yes posters had an impact (which I think is also true), and therefore you cannot use the phrase single handedly.

And in between the clarifications also had an impact, as did FF's ****ing up the economy.

So while I do agree with the basis of what you're saying - that the posters had a red herring impact (and were designed, despite Lenihan's lies since) to do precisely that, your use of "single handedly" in the above post is exaggerating, and is basically the equivalent of Coir's €1.84 poster.

simplistic · 09-10-2009 6:47pm

Its pretty clear what is going to happen on the jobs front.

1 - Yes voters wondering where the jobs are.(uninformed ones anyway).

2 - NAMA will take the banks liablities and a flood of credit will hit the market again.

3 - Jobs created - politicians say " europe has saved us". Yes crowd say "told ya so!"

4 - some years later the debt bomb hits and cripples the country and brings a whole new meaning to depression.

5- headless chickens blame government. no side say "told ya so"

6 - government changes and the democrats of our nation shed a tear of pride as they vote monkeys into suits and big offices.

7 - The illusion of democracy repeats itself solely based on ignorace of the people in the country .

Scofflaw · 09-10-2009 6:53pm

simplistic wrote: »

5- headless chickens blame government. no side say "told ya so"

Really? I don't actually remember that bit, personally.

amused,
Scofflaw

simplistic · 09-10-2009 7:04pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really? I don't actually remember that bit, personally.

amused,
Scofflaw

It is a hypothetical future situation.

amused,

Scofflaw · 09-10-2009 7:14pm

simplistic wrote: »

It is a hypothetical future situation.

amused,

One might almost say fictional...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 09-10-2009 9:49pm

This post has been deleted.

kryogen · 10-10-2009 12:30am

donegalfella wrote:

Also, the last point, Chairman is uh, ah, there is speculation that Mr. Tony Blair will be a new President of the EU Council. Let us be clear, Mr. Tony Blair is a war criminal.... on no circumstances can he be.... (interrupted by moderator)

there are plenty of people who are not "crackpot conspiracy theorists" who would also be of the opinion that Tony Blair, along with George W are in fact war criminals

Permabear · 10-10-2009 12:38am

This post has been deleted.

TJJP · 10-10-2009 12:44am

whatisayis wrote: »

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

http://www.euinfo.ie/index.php?page=faq&op=arg&id=2&title=Lisbon+Treaty

kryogen · 10-10-2009 12:47am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

now you see, theres that arrogant condescending tone that always results in someone getting banned, where is the need for that? are you unable to have a discussion without resorting to thinly veiled bordeline insults?

the winners get to write the history books

both of those men lied to their respective countries (and the world)in order to wage an illegal war.

what exactly are the criteria to be a war criminal in your eyes? would just being on the losing side suffice?

and if you choose to respond please leave the arrogance at the door

Permabear · 10-10-2009 12:54am

This post has been deleted.

kryogen · 10-10-2009 12:56am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

/end

K-9 · 10-10-2009 1:07am

I expected better from Joe. Probably because he shone in the Dail but he is cringe worthy in the EP. He's just the left wing version of Farange.

Scofflaw · 10-10-2009 1:14am

K-9 wrote: »

I expected better from Joe. Probably because he shone in the Dail but he is cringe worthy in the EP. He's just the left wing version of Farange.

Does nobody ever call him Nigel Falange?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 10-10-2009 1:45am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does nobody ever call him Nigel Falange?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funnily enough I think I've spelt it different ways. Was going to check but why waste my time?

Considering the leaflet they sent out, facts aren't exactly his strong point.

truthisfree · 10-10-2009 2:00pm

Funny thread, Yes to jobs, " well we did not really mean yes, literally, it was just an advertising slogan like red bull gives you wings"

To add, we did not really mean Yes either, it was just a slogan on a poster!

I look forward to the expenses reform that will come in soon and in a years time, "well we did not really mean reform it was just a slogan". It just shows how the level of integrity in politics in Ireland has fallen the the standard of fizzy caffeinated water. Speechless........:(

meglome · 10-10-2009 3:03pm

truthisfree wrote: »

Funny thread, Yes to jobs, " well we did not really mean yes, literally, it was just an advertising slogan like red bull gives you wings"

Did you think it meant a load of jobs immediately? Do you think Red Bull gives you wings?

truthisfree wrote: »

To add, we did not really mean Yes either, it was just a slogan on a poster!

This makes no sense in the context.

truthisfree wrote: »

I look forward to the expenses reform that will come in soon and in a years time, "well we did not really mean reform it was just a slogan". It just shows how the level of integrity in politics in Ireland has fallen the the standard of fizzy caffeinated water. Speechless........:(

No idea what this has to do with the EU. Also I think you'll find people keep electing these politicians. They were interviewing people from John O'Donoghue's constituency in Kerry and not one person thought he should resign. I'd be very surprised if a good chuck of those same people weren't complaining about the government and failing to see the connection between these two things, you get the government you deserve.

Liam Byrne · 10-10-2009 4:04pm

meglome wrote: »

This makes no sense in the context.

Actually, it does, and it's a decent dig at the Government's campaign.

If I'm reading it right, the poster is saying that if the Goverment's use of the word "Yes" [as in, to jobs] wasn't really "Yes, we'll create jobs", then our "Yes to Lisbon" may not have really a "Yes to Lisbon".

Reminds me of an old Holly Dunn song "Maybe I Mean Yes"...

bonkey · 10-10-2009 4:05pm

Is it just me, or is there extreme irony in the fact this thread seems to be mostly about no voters misunderstanding or misrepresenting what it is the yes voters are saying?

Funny thread, Yes to jobs, " well we did not really mean yes, literally, it was just an advertising slogan like red bull gives you wings"

I'm pretty sure that they did mean yes. They didn't mean "vote no", nor "spoil your vote", nor "stay at home and don't bother". In fact...from the entire slogan, its about the most unambiguous, literal part of it.

When they said "jobs", I also reckon that they meant "jobs". What they didn't mean was "no more job losses, ever"...but then they didn't say that either. They didn't mean "jobs for everyone, within <pick a timeframe>", but again...they didn't say that.

Mostly, the complaints people have made in this thread seem to involve choosing something that the poster didn't say and complaining that this doesn't reflect reality...then complaining about "backtracking" or somesuch when someone points out that the poster didn't make a clearly detailed claim.

How do you do that, by the way? How does one first make up a subtext from words that don't themselves supply enough detail, and then attack others for saying that the words don't supply detail and that a subtext has to be understood?

RandomName2 · 10-10-2009 4:09pm

K-9 wrote: »

I expected better from Joe. Probably because he shone in the Dail but he is cringe worthy in the EP. He's just the left wing version of Farange.

You actually know what somebody is like in the EP :eek:

The only time I have heard anybody in the EP speak is in leaked you-tube videos (which usually end in security telling the camera-man to turn off the mobile-phone/camcorder/etc)

I would expect Higgins to be feisty enough in the EP - but a large number of the folk there won't have a clue what he's on about and frankly nobody will care. Not that the EP can actually do anything anyway :rolleyes:

I always thought that Nigel (you've made me forget what his surname is now - is it Farage?) was actually not a bad debater; even if his bold statement of 'not a cent spent on the Irish referendum' was clearly not true - at least in the long run - and the green jumpers did look pretty lousy. Oh, and Killroy Silk called UKIP nutters.

But back to Joe - the tag line 'race to the bottom' always struck me as odd --> the whole point of socialism is a race to the bottom. Which clearly, Lisbon, wasn't. It was a race to the top. Which makes socialist opposition to it consistent, even if it does make their message impressively meaningless.

Is there any point in voting in the next general election? FF/FG different faces, just as ugly.

brianthebard · 10-10-2009 4:21pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

But back to Joe - the tag line 'race to the bottom' always struck me as odd --> the whole point of socialism is a race to the bottom. Which clearly, Lisbon, wasn't. It was a race to the top. Which makes socialist opposition to it consistent, even if it does make their message impressively meaningless.

Sorry, what?

RandomName2 · 10-10-2009 4:31pm

bonkey wrote: »

Is it just me, or is there extreme irony in the fact this thread seems to be mostly about no voters misunderstanding or misrepresenting what it is the yes voters are saying?

I'm pretty sure that they did mean yes. They didn't mean "vote no", nor "spoil your vote", nor "stay at home and don't bother". In fact...from the entire slogan, its about the most unambiguous, literal part of it.

When they said "jobs", I also reckon that they meant "jobs". What they didn't mean was "no more job losses, ever"...but then they didn't say that either. They didn't mean "jobs for everyone, within <pick a timeframe>", but again...they didn't say that.

Mostly, the complaints people have made in this thread seem to involve choosing something that the poster didn't say and complaining that this doesn't reflect reality...then complaining about "backtracking" or somesuch when someone points out that the poster didn't make a clearly detailed claim.

How do you do that, by the way? How does one first make up a subtext from words that don't themselves supply enough detail, and then attack others for saying that the words don't supply detail and that a subtext has to be understood?

Sorry but

jobs = jobs
yes side posters = yes to jobs OR yes to recovery
yes to jobs OR yes to recovery = jobs ∈ lisbon

HOWEVER

jobs ∉ lisbon
∵ lisbon = legal competencies as granted by constitutional amendment ≠ job creation
∴ yes side posters = false
∴ ∀ campaign slogans in relation to yes side = false
∴ ∃ falsehood ∈ main political party manifestos
∴ main political party manifestos in relation to lisbon are absolutely worthless & are deliberate distortions of the truth designed solely to further the cause of the proponents of the treaty through engagement with main fears of the public.
∴ falsehood = the backbone of the second referendum result.

Which is a shame.

truthisfree · 10-10-2009 4:43pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Actually, it does, and it's a decent dig at the Government's campaign.

If I'm reading it right, the poster is saying that if the Government's use of the word "Yes" [as in, to jobs] wasn't really "Yes, we'll create jobs", then our "Yes to Lisbon" may not have really a "Yes to Lisbon".

Reminds me of an old Holly Dunn song "Maybe I Mean Yes"...

Thank you, that is exactly what I meant, pretty simple isn't it? :rolleyes:

yes to jobs...

Comments