9 Days to go and all to play for

steelcityblues

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

Now I know these polls work on a different basis from the likes of Millward Brown, but given how one sided the result was, and along with the controversial comments of several key players for the yes side, it would be foolish to stay that the yes side definitely have it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

steelcityblues wrote: »

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

Now I know these polls work on a different basis from the likes of Millward Brown, but given how one sided the result was, and along with the controversial comments of several key players for the yes side, it would be foolish to stay that the yes side definitely have it.

It would be very foolish, I don't think anyone actually is saying that though?

steelcityblues

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It would be very foolish, I don't think anyone actually is saying that though?

I think some people overlooked the fact that in the most recent Millward Brown poll, there was a big chunk of 19% who declared themselves undecided. That 19% will be the key swing voter, of course.

spank_inferno

It will still be carried by at least 10% I reckon.

Obviously a generalisation, however I see the "No" voters as being the type who are less likely to vote in the first place.

(a straw pole at our Sunday dinner table gave the "No" side an 6-2 victory. Only three of us are registered... only two of us voted at the last election!)

Expect the Middle classes / pensioners / party faithfull to carry the day easily.


* I could be wrong though

steelcityblues

spank_inferno wrote: »

It will still be carried by at least 10% I reckon.

Obviously a generalisation, however I see the "No" voters as being the type who are less likely to vote in the first place.

(a straw pole at our Sunday dinner table gave the "No" side an 8-2 victory. Only three of us are registered... only two of us voted at the last election!)

Expect the Middle classes / pensioners / party faithfull to carry the day easily.


* I could be wrong though

For what it is worth, a lot of the callers today sounded and/or middle class and over 60. Both groups would have been part of the core yes vote in previous treaties I agree, but the tide might be turning.

GSF

knowing 4FMs very low listenship figures (and listening to their god awful phone in show - which might explain the former), the poll is likely to only have about 15 -20 respondents (excluding 4FM staff!)

Ozymandius2011

Remember that the last Oireachtas Inquiries poll had 78% in favour.

steelcityblues

GSF wrote: »

knowing 4FMs very low listenship figures (and listening to their god awful phone in show - which might explain the former), the poll is likely to only have about 15 -20 respondents (excluding 4FM staff!)

Roughly 20,000, according to thelatest JNLR. Given a typical poll features 1,000 people, do you think you should dismiss it so easily?

PopeBuckfastXVI

GSF wrote: »

knowing 4FMs very low listenship figures (and listening to their god awful phone in show - which might explain the former), the poll is likely to only have about 15 -20 respondents (excluding 4FM staff!)

25 respondents would give 24 against and 1 for, 50 would give 48 against and 2 for.

Out of curiosity, is the programme broadcast during office hours?

syklops

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Out of curiosity, is the programme broadcast during office hours?

Yep, therein lies the key to understanding these results.

GSF

steelcityblues wrote: »

Roughly 20,000, according to thelatest JNLR. Given a typical poll features 1,000 people, do you think you should dismiss it so easily?

Their average quarter hour is closer to 1k as opposed to their total daily reach (i'm assuming the poll was only open for say 30 to 60 minutes max). So I'd guess if 1k are listening, maybe 1% or 10 people responded? I'm being generous in saying 20!

The Waltzing Consumer

steelcityblues wrote: »

Roughly 20,000, according to thelatest JNLR. Given a typical poll features 1,000 people, do you think you should dismiss it so easily?

You also got to hand it to the No side as I think they are proportionately more active then yes voters. Any articles in the main Irish online sites are predominately full of no voters in the comments section, the no voters made the most noise on the Frontline debate and the Matt Cooper debate and it would not surprise me that this was the case here.

It is not a bad thing, it is good they are active, it is just a pity they do it for this particular campaign.

later12

steelcityblues wrote: »

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

Now I know these polls work on a different basis from the likes of Millward Brown, but given how one sided the result was, and along with the controversial comments of several key players for the yes side, it would be foolish to stay that the yes side definitely have it.

Apart from the obvious demographic limitations of this poll, it is a self selective poll. The professional polling agencies randomly select members of the public and only include those respondents with a reasonable or strong chance of voting on referendum day.

One might put forward all sorts of theories as to why the 'No' vote was so unusually large in the poll you reference. However, even as a supporter of the 'No' argument, I don't think there is a serious chance that the Treaty proposal will be refused. The Irish voting public simply appear to believe there is too much at stake to say No this time.

sinsin

later12 wrote: »

Apart from the obvious demographic limitations of this poll, it is a self selective poll. The professional polling agencies randomly select members of the public and only include those respondents with a reasonable or strong chance of voting on referendum day.

One might put forward all sorts of theories as to why the 'No' vote was so unusually large in the poll you reference. However, even as a supporter of the 'No' argument, I don't think there is a serious chance that the Treaty proposal will be refused. The Irish voting public simply appear to believe there is too much at stake to say No this time.

Social welfare and Public Service money under threat.

C14N

steelcityblues wrote: »

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

It is 4fm though. I assume you listen to it often so you know that their discussions are truly woeful. They are highly entertaining though, in much the same way as Joe Duffy's crowd can be. It's a shame because their music isn't too bad.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You also got to hand it to the No side as I think they are proportionately more active then yes voters. Any articles in the main Irish online sites are predominately full of no voters in the comments section, the no voters made the most noise on the Frontline debate and the Matt Cooper debate and it would not surprise me that this was the case here.

It is not a bad thing, it is good they are active, it is just a pity they do it for this particular campaign.

This is quite true. Any video I have seen on Youtube has been filled with angry no voters posting their opinions. The only problem is that they are generally complete nonsense (although discussion on Youtube is always somewhat hit-and-miss).

Ozymandius2011

Well 2FM is more substantial in listenership and the Colm Hayes show had a text poll with 68% voting no. Make of that what you will.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well 2FM is more substantial in listenership and the Colm Hayes show had a text poll with 68% voting no. Make of that what you will.

I make of it... nothing. It's a text poll; it's meaningless.

What do you make of it?

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well 2FM is more substantial in listenership and the Colm Hayes show had a text poll with 68% voting no. Make of that what you will.

Farmers don't listen to 2FM. The Farmer's Journal and IFA on the other hand...

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

I make of it... nothing. It's a text poll; it's meaningless.

What do you make of it?

That opposition to the Treaty is higher than the newspaper polls are suggesting.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That opposition to the Treaty is higher than the newspaper polls are suggesting.

So you're firmly asserting your belief that a text poll is more accurate than the polls carried out using scientifically-validated methodologies by professional polling companies.




Okay... no confirmation bias at work here. No sirree bob.

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

Okay... no confirmation bias at work here. No sirree bob.

You have to wonder why we bother sometimes.

I can honestly say I came into this whole thing with an open mind. I was leaning towards a 'no' from the start, I saw plenty of arguments to convince me toward a 'yes' and saw many of the things that had led me toward 'no' in the first place debunked.

If someone presented a really cogent argument detailing how the benefits of a 'no' outweigh the benefits of a 'yes' then I would have to hand it to them, and am definitely open to being convinced.

So far though, nobody has come close to that, with the possible exception of later12. Can posters like Ozy, hand on heart, really say their mind is open to being changed? If not then this whole thing becomes not a discussion, but a series of soapbox arguments which are for the benefit of the unseen, silent 'majority' who are supposedly reading all this and swaying back and forth with every post.

I have to admit it saddens me a little.

beeftotheheels

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I have to admit it saddens me a little.

It saddens me a lot.

steelcityblues

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That opposition to the Treaty is higher than the newspaper polls are suggesting.

Interesting. I am sure those in their twenties and thirties will be mostly NO.

steelcityblues

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You have to wonder why we bother sometimes.

I can honestly say I came into this whole thing with an open mind. I was leaning towards a 'no' from the start, I saw plenty of arguments to convince me toward a 'yes' and saw many of the things that had led me toward 'no' in the first place debunked.

If someone presented a really cogent argument detailing how the benefits of a 'no' outweigh the benefits of a 'yes' then I would have to hand it to them, and am definitely open to being convinced.

So far though, nobody has come close to that, with the possible exception of later12. Can posters like Ozy, hand on heart, really say their mind is open to being changed? If not then this whole thing becomes not a discussion, but a series of soapbox arguments which are for the benefit of the unseen, silent 'majority' who are supposedly reading all this and swaying back and forth with every post.

I have to admit it saddens me a little.

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you. Most posters here are OK, I think.

That is what happens on forums - deal with it!

PopeBuckfastXVI

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you. Most posters here are OK, I think.

That is what happens on forums - deal with it!

The scales have dropped from my eyes, you've convinced me to join your cause, thank you my good man, thank you, I've been blind but now I can finally see...

steelcityblues

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The scales have dropped from my eyes, you've convinced me to join your cause, thank you my good man, thank you, I've been blind but now I can finally see...

I like healing the wounded.

sock puppet

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you

Have you ever studied statistics?

beeftotheheels

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you. Most posters here are OK, I think.

That is what happens on forums - deal with it!

No. It is what happens when one side tell lies about things and those not bothered or capable of informing themselves buy into it - because it is what they want to hear.

That there could be an end to austerity tomorrow.

That there's an easy way to recover from the 9.8 financial earthquake that hit us in 07/08.

That 4 years of pain is as bad as it can get (really, 9.8 on the richter scale a recovery in 10 years would be a miracle but that is not what people want to hear so it must be a threat as opposed to an informed analysis of the situation).

But the worst part, is seeing that despite the fact that people can now see Bertie was selling snake oil in 2007, people are still falling over themselves to buy snake oil version 2.0 as sold by SF/ ULA/ Libertas.

steelcityblues

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No. It is what happens when one side tell lies about things and those not bothered or capable of informing themselves buy into it - because it is what they want to hear.

Certainty and Stability are very vague words don't you think. Yet, they have been repeated ad nauseum by the same small group of voices.

Certain of what - that most people will be at work in five years time? That we will have a functioning economy? Nothing stable to me either about an economy that has all this banker debt in it.

I don't like the continuing hammering home of the word 'austerity' by the likes of Paul Murphy and his comrades, either. That is lazy, too.

So, can you even consider that BOTH yes and no, can talk crap?

Maybe you can't believe it, but Declan Ganley, Mary Lou McDonald or Paul Murphy did not convince me to vote NO. I did it through my own reasoning. Hope most of the electorate do, too.

beeftotheheels

steelcityblues wrote: »

Certainty and Stability are very vague words don't you think. Yet, they have been repeated ad nauseum by the same small group of voices.

Certain of what - that most people will be at work in five years time? That we will have a functioning economy? Nothing stable to me either about an economy that has all this banker debt in it.

I don't like the continuing hammering home of the word 'austerity' by the likes of Paul Murphy and his comrades, either. That is lazy, too.

So, can you even consider that BOTH yes and no, can talk crap?

Maybe you can't believe it, but Declan Ganley, Mary Lou McDonald or Paul Murphy did not convince me to vote NO. I did it through my own reasoning. Hope most of the electorate do, too.

I fully acknowledge that both sides are talking crap. It causes me to lose sleep at night. I'm a yes voter because I've read the relevant docs and prefer an answer that doesn't require us to spend years in court proving our point when, if we need bailout 2.0 we will not have years.

I hate the way the yes campaign is being fought. But I hate more the obvious lies being told by the no campaign, lies which presuppose that the electorate are oblivious to the already binding rules under the six-pack.

The problem for me is that the No side get to tell absolute lies with impunity, and the moment that those lies are challenged that "evidences the Yes side threatening the electorate". It doesn't matter if the challenge is based on logic, reason, education (all the more reason to vote no, educated people who might actually understand this must be part of "official Ireland trying to put the working man down").

This isn't about the TSCG, it is about the need of every Irish electorate to believe that there must be a simple, painless (for them, not for whatever other sectors of society they currently despise and deem worthy of pain) solution. Which there isn't.

Happyman42

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I fully acknowledge that both sides are talking crap. It causes me to lose sleep at night. I'm a yes voter because I've read the relevant docs and prefer an answer that doesn't require us to spend years in court proving our point when, if we need bailout 2.0 we will not have years.

I hate the way the yes campaign is being fought. But I hate more the obvious lies being told by the no campaign, lies which presuppose that the electorate are oblivious to the already binding rules under the six-pack.

The problem for me is that the No side get to tell absolute lies with impunity, and the moment that those lies are challenged that "evidences the Yes side threatening the electorate". It doesn't matter if the challenge is based on logic, reason, education (all the more reason to vote no, educated people who might actually understand this must be part of "official Ireland trying to put the working man down").

This isn't about the TSCG, it is about the need of every Irish electorate to believe that there must be a simple, painless (for them, not for whatever other sectors of society they currently despise and deem worthy of pain) solution. Which there isn't.

Simon Coveney was caught telling lies on VB tonight or else Enda lied to the Dail earlier in the year, (make your own mind up who was telling the truth.) To me it was a major lie, in that he was trying to present a picture that this government was working in our interests and was continuing to do that by looking for a Yes vote.
Does the fact that a government minister or our Taoiseach was telling a lie about asking for a write down of the debt give you any cause for concern about their motives?

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

Does the fact that a government minister or our Taoiseach was telling a lie about asking for a write down of the debt give you any cause for concern about their motives?

Nope. Because being a "Mistress of the Laws", with a a specialism in EU Law, from an institution which ranks way higher than any Irish educational facility in terms of the international rankings, I don't worry about the Government pulling a fast one one me. My LLB (and LLM ) were conferred by the University of London. I'm more than happy to think this through for myself and come to my own conclusions.

Happyman42

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Nope. Because being a "Mistress of the Laws", with a a specialism in EU Law, from an institution which ranks way higher than any Irish educational facility in terms of the international rankings, I don't worry about the Government pulling a fast one one me. My LLB (and LLM ) were conferred by the University of London. I'm more than happy to think this through for myself and come to my own conclusions.

What if he lies to you about something you know nothing about, is that ok too? Or do you know everything?

seamus

Yes it's all a great conspiracy by the Government to give up control of the country to a German dictatorship.

Because that's what'll win votes at the next general election.

I wonder do the anti-EU people give any kind of logical thought to their wild theories and scare tactics?

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

Yes it's all a great conspiracy by the Government to give up control of the country to a German dictatorship.

Because that's what'll win votes at the next general election.

I wonder do the anti-EU people give any kind of logical thought to their wild theories and scare tactics?

Well if people swallow their lies and see no problem with them lying :eek:, what can't they do?

Tell me again the logic of allowing GOVERNMENT ministers to lie Bertie?
:rolleyes:

seamus

I didn't say about lying, but I find it bizarre that you seem to be implying that they're lying about "other things" of which you have no proof or even any specifics.

At the same time the opposition parties to the treaty are openly lying, scaremongering and bullying people into voting no - the very things they accuse the "Yes" side of, even though a single lie on the part of the yes side has yet to be uncovered.
Yet people don't seem to have any issue supporting these politicians. What's that about? If they got into Government that would be tacit approval for them to lie about whatever they wanted to.

oscarBravo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I hate the way the yes campaign is being fought.

I'm not convinced there's any other way to fight it.

This is another somewhat technical treaty which represents the best efforts of the Eurozone's member states to find a compromise between their respective electorates' wishes, and the welfare of the Union and the currency as a whole, which can be somewhat in tension with the individual electorates' wishes, although it shouldn't be.

There's nothing particularly sexy to sell. The 'no' campaign attack words like 'stability', demanding proof that such stability will come to pass, while not feeling any compulsion to prove that stability will result from rejecting the treaty. On the flipside, the 'no' camp will bandy about phrases like 'permanently enshrine austerity', while accusing the 'yes' side of scaremongering should they suggest any hint of a negative consequence of rejection; they peddle blatant lies about not requiring ratification in order to access ESM funding while shrieking hysterically about whatever Coveney said last night; they carp on and on about ESM funding not being guaranteed to us if we ratify, while reassuring us that the EU will trip over itself to lend us money no matter how intransigent we are in refusing to sign up to any treaties.

We shouldn't be having a referendum on this issue. We should be letting the government ratify it. It's their job. If we're going to demand a say in the running of the country - if we want to sit at the grownups' table and make grownup decisions - we have a responsibility to approach the issue in a grownup manner. But Irish people don't like to be told they have responsibilities; they only want to hear about their entitlements.

So yes: deeply depressing.

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say about lying, but I find it bizarre that you seem to be implying that they're lying about "other things" of which you have no proof or even any specifics.

At the same time the opposition parties to the treaty are openly lying, scaremongering and bullying people into voting no - the very things they accuse the "Yes" side of, even though a single lie on the part of the yes side has yet to be uncovered.
Yet people don't seem to have any issue supporting these politicians. What's that about? If they got into Government that would be tacit approval for them to lie about whatever they wanted to.

Wrong...we are not electing them to any office. This is a referendum. The No side has many different positions & nuances, from the loony fringe to passionate beliefs and well founded fears, you can take what you want from them, nobody is insisting you believe them.
However, when a Government lies, that is an entirely different thing.
People voted for Fine Gael/Lab, believing that they would do as they said, now we find that on a core promise that they are lying through their teeth, that instead of defending US in Europe, they are bolstering the status quo and doing precisely what the last shower did.
That is quite a shock to my system, you are entitled to keep your head in the sand with all the others. I have had quite enough of them.
Only a wet week ago, we had these forums alive with people blustering about the lies and corruption of FF and here we have them swallowing the same self-interested, self-protecting guff again. Laughable if it wasn't so dangerous for REAL people.

btw, do you believe that Gilmore lied on Morning Ireland today as well or is Wikileaks part of the scaremongers and bullies too?

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

People voted for Fine Gael/Lab, believing that they would do as they said, now we find that on a core promise that they are lying through their teeth, that instead of defending US in Europe, they are bolstering the status quo and doing precisely what the last shower did.

What core promise, and how are they not defending us in Europe?

btw, do you believe that Gilmore lied on Morning Ireland today as well

What did he say?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wrong...we are not electing them to any office. This is a referendum. The No side has many different positions & nuances, from the loony fringe to passionate beliefs and well founded fears, you can take what you want from them, nobody is insisting you believe them.
However, when a Government lies, that is an entirely different thing.
People voted for Fine Gael/Lab, believing that they would do as they said, now we find that on a core promise that they are lying through their teeth, that instead of defending US in Europe, they are bolstering the status quo and doing precisely what the last shower did.
That is quite a shock to my system, you are entitled to keep your head in the sand with all the others. I have had quite enough of them.
Only a wet week ago, we had these forums alive with people blustering about the lies and corruption of FF and here we have them swallowing the same self-interested, self-protecting guff again. Laughable if it wasn't so dangerous for REAL people.

btw, do you believe that Gilmore lied on Morning Ireland today as well or is Wikileaks part of the scaremongers and bullies too?

On the "no" side,

loony fringe - yes, agree with you, large part of the "no" side;
passionate beliefs - yes, agree with you but unfortunately those passionate beliefs are ill-informed, small minority of the "no" side, feels sorry for them, taken in by the lies of SF/ULA axis of ignorance;
well-founded fears - no, none of these on the "no" side only those ignorant of the Treaty have illogical fears so there are no well-founded fears.

As for the difference between the Government lying and SF/ULA axis of ignorance lying, I don't understand your point. You are saying that FG/Lab lied before they got into government (which I don't accept) presumably when they were in opposition but that is different and worse than the huge amount of lies being spread around by SF/ULA about household charges, water charges, bank bailouts all coming because of this referendum but that those lies are ok because they are not in government, but FG/Lab were not in government when they made the so-called lies that your are complaining about. Can you sort out the logic for me?

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

What core promise, and how are they not defending us in Europe?

Enda says in the Dail, 'We didn't ask for a write down and we will never ask for one'
Coveney says, We did.
One of them is lying.

What did he say?

First off, he lied when asked would there be a second vote on the Lisbon Treaty, then Wikileaks reveals that he was down in the American Embassy an hour or two later, assuring them that the Irish people would pass a second referendum, then he says that he never said that on Morning Ireland when under pressure from the interveiwer and Pearse Doherty.


Add to all that, Lucinda Creighton and Joan Burton refusing to answer direct questions on what the plan was in the event of a NO vote. I see a goevrnment floundering and in disarray, all taking positions to protect themselves. It is no longer about the people.

Are we not entitled to know the truth of this stuff? What would somebody with the superlative education of beeftotheheels make of that?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Can you sort out the logic for me?

Enda or Coveney is lying right now, in GOVERNMENT.
Gilmore is lying, in GOVERNMENT
Creighton and Burton are evading important questions in GOVERNMENT.

I can see now why it took so long for the sheeple to rumble FF. :rolleyes:

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

What if he lies to you about something you know nothing about, is that ok too? Or do you know everything?

You keep harping on about lies. We're voting to allow (or not) the Gov to ratify a treaty. The treaty text, and everything one needs to understand it including the six-pack are freely available on the web.

Yet any time any one from the Yes camp says anything, they're bullying/ lying/ whatever and I suspect that this is because a large part of the "No" camp are unable or unwilling to understand the detail of what they are voting on, and are still determined to have their say [about whatever is going on in their head at that moment in time] and looking for some feeble rationalization to make themselves feel better about voting to jeopardize the future of our country.

If people bothered to read and get comfortable with what we are voting on, what any politician, yes or no advocating, said would matter less.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Enda or Coveney is lying right now, in GOVERNMENT.
Gilmore is lying, in GOVERNMENT
Creighton and Burton are evading important questions in GOVERNMENT.

I can see now why it took so long for the sheeple to rumble FF. :rolleyes:

So you'll suddenly start demanding truthfulness from SF and the ULA if they get into government, but it's OK for them to lie in the meantime?

Or is it OK for them to lie because they're advocating the result you want?

Happyman42

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You keep harping on about lies. We're voting to allow (or not) the Gov to ratify a treaty. The treaty text, and everything one needs to understand it including the six-pack are freely available on the web.

Yet any time any one from the Yes camp says anything, they're bullying/ lying/ whatever and I suspect that this is because a large part of the "No" camp are unable or unwilling to understand the detail of what they are voting on, and are still determined to have their say [about whatever is going on in their head at that moment in time] and looking for some feeble rationalization to make themselves feel better about voting to jeopardize the future of our country.

If people bothered to read and get comfortable with what we are voting on, what any politician, yes or no advocating, said would matter less.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you'll suddenly start demanding truthfulness from SF and the ULA if they get into government, but it's OK for them to lie in the meantime?

Or is it OK for them to lie because they're advocating the result you want?

Avoiding the issues much people? :rolleyes:

We have to call the No side on so called lies, but we are asked to ignore the Governments. Very good.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Avoiding the issues much people? :rolleyes:

Well, no. The issues relate to the treaty itself, and its actual effects. I can see how attractive it is to the 'no' side to create noisy sideshows to distract from the treaty, but I'd rather not play.

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

Avoiding the issues much people? :rolleyes:

We have to call the No side on so called lies, but we are asked to ignore the Governments. Very good.

But what lies are you talking about in relation to the referendum?

You mention dishonesty by Eamon Gilmore, which occurred when he wasn't in government, and in relation to an entirely different topic. So that's irrelevant.

Can you provide citations for Kenny & Coveney's conflicting claims? In any case, this may not be lying as they don't share a single mind, so one may be incorrect in their statements (which is not lying).

"Evading important questions" isn't lying, and in any case what are the important questions relevant to the treaty which are being evaded? Maybe they have no plan in case of a No vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

seamus wrote: »

Happyman42 wrote: »

Avoiding the issues much people? :rolleyes:

We have to call the No side on so called lies, but we are asked to ignore the Governments. Very good.

But what lies are you talking about in relation to the referendum?

You mention dishonesty by Eamon Gilmore, which occurred when he wasn't in government, and in relation to an entirely different topic. So that's irrelevant.

Can you provide citations for Kenny & Coveney's conflicting claims? In any case, this may not be lying as they don't share a single mind, so one may be incorrect in their statements (which is not lying).

"Evading important questions" isn't lying, and in any case what are the important questions relevant to the treaty which are being evaded? Maybe they have no plan in case of a No vote.

As if the government are going to detail a plan outlining how everything will be fine after a defeat in a referendum they are campaigning to pass. You might as well moan that they aren't campaigning for a 'no' (or NO to give it its usual capitalization). It's farce at this stage.

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

Enda says in the Dail, 'We didn't ask for a write down and we will never ask for one'
Coveney says, We did.
One of them is lying.

You don't understand something thus it constitutes a lie?

Enda said we have not sought to default on our sovereign debt like Greece. Simon said we looked for flexibility in bailing in the banking senior bondholders. Not the same thing at all (although VB clearly tried to muddy the water).

Enda talking about apples. Simon talking about pears. Vincent suggesting that anything Simon says about pears contradicts what Enda said about apples. It doesn't and thus does not evidence a lie.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. The issues relate to the treaty itself, and its actual effects. I can see how attractive it is to the 'no' side to create noisy sideshows to distract from the treaty, but I'd rather not play.

I didn't turn this referendum into a political issue. That is what it has become because government policy on our membership of the EU has continued to polarise the electorate. That this has become an issue wider than the treaty itself is down to the bungling and ineptitude of the present government and the EU.

seamus wrote: »

But what lies are you talking about in relation to the referendum?

You mention dishonesty by Eamon Gilmore, which occurred when he wasn't in government, and in relation to an entirely different topic. So that's irrelevant.

Can you provide citations for Kenny & Coveney's conflicting claims? In any case, this may not be lying as they don't share a single mind, so one may be incorrect in their statements (which is not lying).

"Evading important questions" isn't lying, and in any case what are the important questions relevant to the treaty which are being evaded? Maybe they have no plan in case of a No vote.

Fair enough, I wish you luck living with yourself when you one day wake up and realise that this is just FF all over again. :rolleyes:

I think TV3 have a player where you can watch Coveney getting caught out.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Avoiding the issues much people? :rolleyes:

We have to call the No side on so called lies, but we are asked to ignore the Governments. Very good.

Eh, no, there are two issues.

(1) There is the issue of whether the government has lied. A number of posters have debunked your government telling "lies" allegation.

(2) There is the continued attempts by you (and others on here) to accuse the government of lying yet accept the lies coming from the "no" side, surely you must see the hypocrisy? As you appear not to, some are trying gently to point it out.