Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What has been changed ?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Nigel Farage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Nigel Farage


    :cool::cool::cool::cool:


  • Options
    #63
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Well, first of all there were promises of jobs - by the government parties. Now, you can say that you can discount what the government parties have to say on the matter, despite their very active part in drawing up Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

    I've already addressed the thing about the no posters (although I forgot to mention that the LIES bumper stickers on the coir posters was a nice touch by the yes side).

    You miss your own point. How would the opinion of a business leader matter when the opinion of a political leader doesn't seem to matter? Well, anyway your question is rhetorical, but I am not altogether sure what you mean by business 'leader' in the first place. As far as I can see, most businesses kept quiet about Lisbon - as they would have about divorce. It is not really within the remit of private companies to take part in political campaigns. Of course, you might see Ryanair campaigning on behalf of FG in the next election if O'Leary gets a promise of personal tax breaks...

    Forget about the idiots in charge of the country. See Dubai's economic bubble collapsing. Realise that there are economic cycles. It happens man! Okay- investment was squandered, not enough progress was made when the going was good (because recession was always going to happen) the pressure cooker of the property market wasn't eased, and there was no rainy-day fund. I hope you aren't hoping for the main opposition parties to sort it out if you admit 'Yes for Jobs' was nonsense.

    What I think has been firmly established at this point is that there's no-one round here who voted Yes who believes that "Yes for Jobs" was to be taken any more literally than any other political slogan. Presumably the same is true of people who voted No.

    That leaves us with a position where it's clear that you're pursuing at great length a straw man in a way which can't realistically be anything but a very lingering case of sour grapes. Is that really a good use of your time?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #64
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Even though the sterling has always (apart from a single day) been stronger than the euro since the inception of the single currency :cool:

    Prior to the Euro, you could typically get DM 2.48 for your Irish pound. That didn't mean that the Irish pound was stronger than the DM though. Not many people in a financial crisis would have opted for the Irish pound over the D-Mark!

    Likewise, the number that Sterling trades at wrt the Euro is, like the DM:IEP, essentially just a ratio which varies as the currencies "strengthen" or "weaken" against each other over time.


  • Options
    #65
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Well, first of all there were promises of jobs - by the government parties. Now, you can say that you can discount what the government parties have to say on the matter, despite their very active part in drawing up Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

    I've already addressed the thing about the no posters (although I forgot to mention that the LIES bumper stickers on the coir posters was a nice touch by the yes side).

    Look I'm not that interested in arguing semantics but here I go anyway. Lisbon was pushed as being good for jobs. However at no point did anyone say Lisbon will definitely create 100,00 jobs, there was no promise of jobs. There was (and still is) a general feeling amongst business people that Lisbon will help us get out of this mess.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You miss your own point. How would the opinion of a business leader matter when the opinion of a political leader doesn't seem to matter? Well, anyway your question is rhetorical, but I am not altogether sure what you mean by business 'leader' in the first place. As far as I can see, most businesses kept quiet about Lisbon - as they would have about divorce. It is not really within the remit of private companies to take part in political campaigns. Of course, you might see Ryanair campaigning on behalf of FG in the next election if O'Leary gets a promise of personal tax breaks...

    I don't think I do at all. The government doesn't create jobs (bulking up the public service doesn't count). They may set the scene for job creation but it's the business people that do the actual job creation. If business people had a problem about Lisbon then presumably we would have heard that, instead we heard business people and organisations campaigning for Lisbon. In the Lisbon campaign I don't recall any business people campaigning against it. I run a business and I was more than happy for Lisbon to go through, for the country No.1 and self interest No. 2. Why shouldn't business people have an opinion on something that will directly effect them?
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Forget about the idiots in charge of the country. See Dubai's economic bubble collapsing. Realise that there are economic cycles. It happens man! Okay- investment was squandered, not enough progress was made when the going was good (because recession was always going to happen) the pressure cooker of the property market wasn't eased, and there was no rainy-day fund. I hope you aren't hoping for the main opposition parties to sort it out if you admit 'Yes for Jobs' was nonsense.

    I never said Yes for jobs was nonsense. I said there was no PROMISE of jobs. Our government could have done a lot of things to ease our long-term problems but instead they kept fanning the flames of a property bubble. But we did vote them. John and Mary were afraid in 2007 that their house wouldn't be 'worth' a million any more so they voted FF again and destroyed the PD's instead.


  • Options
    #66
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That leaves us with a position where it's clear that you're pursuing at great length a straw man in a way which can't realistically be anything but a very lingering case of sour grapes. Is that really a good use of your time?

    Although the yes voters of boards may not have been swayed by the yes campaign (and displayed generally quite a good understanding of the treaty itself) it is separate of the condoning of that particular campaign.

    Anyway - there never was much point in any EU citizen's opposition to the various proposals of this most recent treaty since the drafting of its protocols in 2004. The only hope that campaigners who were against it had was of reducing its legitimacy. Even had there been another no vote from Ireland Lisbon would have been passed - although most of the no campaigners prior to the vote lied on this issue (as they did on many others) on the basis that voting no would be logically considered a waste of time. It would have been slightly better to see Ireland drop of the EU under the governance of FF or FG, and then reenter after Lisbon had passed. Not that it would actually change anything in terms of law - but it would show up the... moralistic chasm.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement