Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yay for democracy.

It is actually way overrated. It essentially leads to countries and the world ultimately being run by the lowest common denominator.

StealthRolex

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The ESM sounds like a massive Ponzi scheme. We are being asked to contribute €11 billion to a fund that doesn't yet exist. Bernie Madoff eat your heart out.

I think the idea is we short the shares to make a quick profit.

Max Power1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Precisely as far as all the stupid slogans on the 'no' side. Which is a salient lesson on how useful slogans are in making your mind up either way.

So, after being promised "Yes to Lisbon = Yes to Jobs", the jobs do not materialize, yet we can accept the pro treaty arguments being made by the same (similar) bodies this time?

meglome

A SURVEY BY the Small Firms Association (SFA) indicates that the majority of its members believe a ‘Yes’ vote is likely in the forthcoming referendum.

Results from the survey, which was conducted last week, shows that 83 per cent agree that a ‘Yes’ vote is likely, with 8 per cent saying a ‘No’ vote will prevail and 8 per cent answering they didn’t know.

Imagine the people in this country who employ the most workers looking for a Yes, I mean what would they know.

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

So, after being promised "Yes to Lisbon = Yes to Jobs", the jobs do not materialize, yet we can accept the pro treaty arguments being made by the same (similar) bodies this time?

Again I ask you about our booming exports, you know the part of the economy we didn't wreck ourselves.

--Kaiser--

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is actually way overrated. It essentially leads to countries and the world ultimately being run by the lowest common denominator.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government........except all the others that have been tried."

Max Power1

meglome wrote: »

Again I ask you about our booming exports, you know the part of the economy we didn't wreck ourselves.

Again I'll ask where are the Jobs

I can do this ad infinitum. The export industry is not linked to Lisbon in any way. The export industry was already there.

Scofflaw

Max Power1 wrote: »

So, after being promised "Yes to Lisbon = Yes to Jobs", the jobs do not materialize, yet we can accept the pro treaty arguments being made by the same (similar) bodies this time?

Are you expecting another property bubble burst?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Max Power1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you expecting another property bubble burst?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Diverted traffic all take the first left!?

-Max

goat2

meglome wrote: »

Again I ask you about our booming exports, you know the part of the economy we didn't wreck ourselves.

we ourselves did not wreck this economy, it was the few who shared out the wealth between themselves that did that for us, and now we who owe nothing to banks and do not have much of a nest egg to none at all for a reiny day are asked to foot the bill, and leave those b1st1rds off the hook, i am angry, no thanks,

Scofflaw

Max Power1 wrote: »

Diverted traffic all take the first left!?

-Max

You see, I don't see the point in your question - you'd need to find people who both voted Yes at Lisbon 2 on account of the official campaign's slogans and who will be voting Yes in this one based on the official campaign's current slogans.

I've never met anybody like that, which reduces your schtick to "I think politicians aren't entirely honest" - something which I think isn't going to be news, and which is an irritating straw man, since nobody here is even arguing we should vote Yes on the credibility of the government.

Personally, I'm voting on what's in the Treaty.

Max Power 1 wrote:

I can do this ad infinitum.

You'll find, I think, that you can't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KELTICKNIGHTT

voting NO

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

So, after being promised "Yes to Lisbon = Yes to Jobs", the jobs do not materialize, yet we can accept the pro treaty arguments being made by the same (similar) bodies this time?

You seem to be confusing "slogans" with "arguments". You might want to check that premise.

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

Again I'll ask where are the Jobs

I can do this ad infinitum. The export industry is not linked to Lisbon in any way. The export industry was already there.

Here you go, from SiliconRepublic:

Ireland’s recent Lisbon Treaty "Yes" for Europe was a decisive factor, says Citrix management.

So, Citrix created 20 jobs and put it down to a Yes vote. Now, your next post should be along the lines of "Only 20 jobs? But there's loads on the dole" and my reply will be "But they never said how many jobs". It's a childish point to make, but no more childish than continuing to bring up the "Where's all those jobs?" line.

Plus, as was pointed out above, we were already in the process of collapse, and Lisbon could do nothing to stop that. Voting no would not really change our situation.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lisbon was notoriously complicated and the average voter couldn't really be expected to understand the whole thing.

This treaty however is pretty straightforward. Sure the government is doing its usually bulls*** job of explaining it, but you could easily just take ten minutes to read it yourself!

True. The odd thing is some people want more "stuff" added to it, which will make it even more complicated!

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't do back seat modding.

You missed the point - if they're contra charter you get to complain about them to mods.

Besides, pointing out things that you find offensive might get people to treat you a bit better (or get you the abuse that it deserves if you're wrong).

I was asking, since I'm not able to figure it out, what bits you found to be... off-putting.

Ozymandius2011

meglome wrote: »

Imagine the people in this country who employ the most workers looking for a Yes, I mean what would they know.

I've read the links and when I hear of 97-99% "Yes" votes I think of Saddam's Iraq.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I've read the links and when I hear of 97-99% "Yes" votes I think of Saddam's Iraq.

Do you pursue that thought to see if it has any basis in logic and reason, or do you promptly throw it onto an Internet forum because it sounds suitably disparaging towards people who disagree with you?

Happyman42

meglome wrote: »

Imagine the people in this country who employ the most workers looking for a Yes, I mean what would they know.

Remember Enda and Gilmore saying that Corporations where waiting to see the outcome of the vote before investing here? Wonder did anybody tell Intel and Amazon that!
Business leaders can get things wrong too...ask Sean Quinn!

dvpower

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I've read the links and when I hear of 97-99% "Yes" votes I think of Saddam's Iraq.

It was 83%, not 97% - 99%.

Results from the survey, which was conducted last week, shows that 83 per cent agree that a ‘Yes’ vote is likely, with 8 per cent saying a ‘No’ vote will prevail and 8 per cent answering they didn’t know

What are you suggesting - did someone get to the SFA?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I've read the links and when I hear of 97-99% "Yes" votes I think of Saddam's Iraq.

More underhand insinuation on corruption in research from you, without actually having the courage to come out and say it. Please desist from such dastardly posts, and converse in an honest manner. Also, just in case you are unaware of the definition of the word dastardly, I'll save you from looking it up; it means to act like a sneaking coward, which I believe defines your actions here perfectly.

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I've read the links and when I hear of 97-99% "Yes" votes I think of Saddam's Iraq.

I will accept for a minute that you are right about the 97-99% "Yes" as I haven't read the link.

I suppose though that you are right, when faced with a situation that 97-99% of people agree with something, you are only left with a few choices

(1) you live in a totalitarian state
(2) you are part of the 1% that the Occupy movement is targeting
(3) you are mad, idiotic, clinically insane, plain stupid or just haven't understood the issue.

I can see why you picked (1)

Wild Bill

antoobrien wrote: »

Bill - that includes a lot of debt that isn't Irish (the corporate debt) - which undermines the "findings" of the article.

I was responding to a ridiculous claim that nobody could be found on the internet claiming Irish debt was unsustainable.

I'm not necessarily endorsing the arguments in the link.

I see a long reply post from Godge - doubt there is anything new in it but I'll plough through it and reply. After I've had me tea.

Soon only the very rich will be able to afford such luxury items after the euro collapses.

Wild Bill

I note that the poll has a 56 - 31 lead for the "no" side but the posts are running about 4 to 1 in the fantasy direction of support for the Bankers' Treaty.

This means the readers are more balanced than the writers; which figures when you think about it :cool:

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

I was responding to a ridiculous claim that nobody could be found on the internet claiming Irish debt was unsustainable.

I'm not necessarily endorsing the arguments in the link.

I see a long reply post from Godge - doubt there is anything new in it but I'll plough through it and reply. After I've had me tea.

Soon only the very rich will be able to afford such luxury items after the euro collapses.

Cheer up Bill, it is not as bad as you think it is or as it was.

18 months ago, it was correct to wonder if it was possible to get out of the mess, now there is no doubt that we can get out of the mess, the question is will we take the necessary decisions (including a "Yes" vote on Thursday) to get out of the mess.

humanji

Wild Bill wrote: »

I note that the poll has a 56 - 31 lead for the "no" side but the posts are running about 4 to 1 in the fantasy direction of support for the Bankers' Treaty.

This means the readers are more balanced than the writers; which figures when you think about it :cool:

Hardly a need to get childish. Here's a post on the AH thread from Scofflaw pointing out that the no's were winning in the Lisbon poll too, but ended up losing.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78909650&postcount=861

It's just an internet poll that really means little. How do we even know all the people who voted are entitled to vote in the referendum?

Wild Bill

Godge wrote: »

the question is will we take the necessary decisions (including a "Yes" vote on Thursday) to get out of the mess.

And we need a "yes", why?

Because we'll need another "bailout"!

Factor the added debt from that into the calculations and you get "unsustainable"

Wild Bill

humanji wrote: »

How do we even know all the people who voted are entitled to vote in the referendum?

I don't know. And I think the YES side will easily win (it's in the polls).

Which doesn't mean the 'yes' supporters are right - just that most folk are easily threatened, scared and misled.

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

And we need a "yes", why?

Because we'll need another "bailout"!

Factor the added debt from that into the calculations and you get "unsustainable"

It is not necessarily true that we will need a bailout but there are such things as self-fulfilling prophecies.

If we vote "No", the markets will get nervous because we no longer have access to a second bailout, the potential interest rates on bonds will carry a premium, when we want to go back to the market, those rates will be unsustainable, we will need a second bailout, will not have access to fundes for one and be deep in the ****. You see, voting "No" is likely to create that vicious circle especially because the markets are not behaving rationally at this time.

On the other hand, if we vote "Yes", the markets will be happy that if necessary we have access to a second bailout, the bonds will not need a risk premium, the rates at which we can borrow will be lower, and therefore, barring something bigger happening externally, we will not need a second bailout, a virtuous circle in action.

You may not like the logic of that but it is one of the factors influencing my "Yes" vote.

humanji

Wild Bill wrote:

I don't know. And I think the YES side will easily win (it's in the polls).

Which doesn't mean the 'yes' supporters are right - just that most folk are easily threatened, scared and misled.

Because the no camp has been a bastion of honesty and respect for the voters?