YES

RichieC

I was at the match in lansdowne road yesterday and one of the flags they were waving had "lucozade YES" on it... I was mildly perturbed by it.. is this a new and rather lazy slogan by glaxosmithkline? or is it sneaking in the old politics?

http://i.imgur.com/tNiNj.jpg

:mad:?

:pac:?

TeddyTedson

I'll be voting Yes. I feel the majority will.

omgitsthelazor

http://www.lucozade.com/yes/

Just an ad campaign it seems. Presume its "just do it" "yes you can" kind of feel good thing rather than anything political.

wendell borton

Glaxo will be the new IG Farben of the resulting eu reich if we vote yes.:rolleyes:

Mint Sauce

Nothing to do with politics. Advertising campaign has been running here for a good while and the UK before that.

Hank Scorpio

NO

GAME

SHOW

RichieC

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I'll be voting Yes. I feel the majority will.

Reasons I've heard for voting yes thus far "sure aren't shinners agin it" " declan ganley is voting no" ect.

havent heard a real reason for voting yes yet.

Immaculate Pasta

It's not political. Thanks to corporates muscling in on professional sport, they love sanitising any atmosphere generated by fans. Sports like soccer, rugby are all marketed as middle class games now. Sit down, shut up and buy lots of merchandise when you're there. Profits > Atmosphere experience. The Premier League and all seater stadiums have been the worst hit by this. If we want you to make any noise, it will be on our terms and it must be politically correct and inoffensive :cool:.

Mint Sauce

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

It's not political. Thanks to corporates muscling in on professional sport, they love sanitising any atmosphere generated by fans. Sports like soccer, rugby are all marketed as middle class games now. Sit down, shut up and buy lots of merchandise when you're there. Profits > Atmosphere experience. The Premier League and all seater stadiums have been the worst hit by this. If we want you to make any noise, it will be on our terms and it must be politically correct and inoffensive :cool:.

This campaign didn't start with sports. They were doing the UK festival scene long before they were covering the football and rugby here. Its a mass market, and a huge target audience.

dvpower

RichieC wrote: »

Reasons I've heard for voting yes thus far "sure aren't shinners agin it" " declan ganley is voting no" ect.

havent heard a real reason for voting yes yet.

You haven't heard the 'access to the ESM reason'?
Have you been away somewhere?

My name is URL

I've never liked Lucozade. Any soft drink which includes the word diarrhea on the bottle isn't to be trusted.

TeddyTedson

RichieC wrote: »

Reasons I've heard for voting yes thus far "sure aren't shinners agin it" " declan ganley is voting no" ect.

havent heard a real reason for voting yes yet.

Well I don't really know too much about it to be honest, but I gather that if we vote no, we can be fined by the EU if the books aren't balanced as they'd like.

The shinners are pissing me off now with they're opposition to everything, they're like FF when they're not in government.

There's no point in voting no imo, being half in and half out. It should be all or nothing.
I think we would be better leaving the EU and having a trade agreement instead. But we won't, so it's better to be all in.

RichieC

If you pay tax, vote no, if you're on the scratch, vote yes.

bnt

Oh, I thought this was going to be about the band. More interesting than the politics, that's for sure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vV_L7OQtU0

Jester252

My name is URL wrote: »

I've never liked Lucozade. Any soft drink which includes the word diarrhea on the bottle isn't to be trusted.

Bet you don't like apple sours then

RaRaRasputin

Yeah, people will mistake Lucozade and the referendum and vote "yes" as a result of those ads. A bit on the paranoid side, eh

RichieC

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Yeah, people will mistake Lucozade and the referendum and vote "yes" as a result of those ads. A bit on the paranoid side, eh

I'd say you haven't a foocking clue how propaganda works.

the groutch

They're sponsoring Daniel Bryan

losthorizon

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

It's not political. Thanks to corporates muscling in on professional sport, they love sanitising any atmosphere generated by fans. Sports like soccer, rugby are all marketed as middle class games now. Sit down, shut up and buy lots of merchandise when you're there. Profits > Atmosphere experience. The Premier League and all seater stadiums have been the worst hit by this. If we want you to make any noise, it will be on our terms and it must be politically correct and inoffensive :cool:.

You've never been to Turners Cross!

onemorechance

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Well I don't really know too much about it to be honest, but I gather that if we vote no, we can be fined by the EU if the books aren't balanced as they'd like.

It's the opposite, voting YES means that budgets must be in balance or in surplus, otherwise a fine of up to 0.1 % of GDP.

Voting YES also means access to the stability fund.

A proper negotiation and a proper democracy would not require the carrot and stick approach, rather just the carrot. Access to the fund for countries that can stick to the requirements, no access to those that don't.

Why the f**k should we sign up to agree to another EU fine?

Sergeant

RichieC wrote: »

I'd say you haven't a foocking clue how propaganda works.

So let me get this straight. GlazoSmithKline came up with a marketing campaign that has been around since at least this time last year, tacitly aware that it could be used to subtly campaign for a yes vote on a treaty that hadn't even been formulated at the time? Would you say the faceless bureaucrats in the EU approached the board of GSK to set in motion this sinister campaign? Or was it the other way around?

RaRaRasputin

Sergeant wrote: »

So let me get this straight. GlazoSmithKline came up with a marketing campaign that has been around since at least this time last year, tacitly aware that it could be used to subtly campaign for a yes vote on a treaty that hadn't even been formulated at the time? Would you say the faceless bureaucrats in the EU approached the board of GSK to set in motion this sinister campaign? Or was it the other way around?

You are mistaken, we just don't have the brains to realise the full extent of this conspiracy

Vita nova

onemorechance wrote: »

It's the opposite, voting YES means that budgets must be in balance or in surplus, otherwise a fine of up to 0.1 % of GDP.

Voting YES also means access to the stability fund.

A proper negotiation and a proper democracy would not require the carrot and stick approach, rather just the carrot. Access to the fund for countries that can stick to the requirements, no access to those that don't.

Why the f**k should we sign up to agree to another EU fine?

That's incorrect.
Ratifying the treaty requires a government to add deficit rules and a correction mechanism into its national law.

The fine is actually for not putting these rules into law. The Referendum Commission explains it thus:

If a country which has ratified this Treaty fails to put the structural
deficit rules fully into national law, the issue may be referred
to the Court of Justice of the EU. If a country fails to abide
by the Court’s binding ruling, the Court may then impose
fines of up to 0.1% of the country’s GDP.

If a government fails to meet its obligations regarding deficits, it must follow the correction mechanism to restore stability, however, it is not fined.

Temptamperu

Is there a meh vote at all?

onemorechance

Vita nova wrote: »

That's incorrect.
Ratifying the treaty requires a government to add deficit rules and a correction mechanism into its national law.

The fine is actually for not putting these rules into law. The Referendum Commission explains it thus:

If a country which has ratified this Treaty fails to put the structural
deficit rules fully into national law, the issue may be referred
to the Court of Justice of the EU. If a country fails to abide
by the Court’s binding ruling, the Court may then impose
fines of up to 0.1% of the country’s GDP.

If a government fails to meet its obligations regarding deficits, it must follow the correction mechanism to restore stability, however, it is not fined.

Thanks for correcting that; it is a big mistake in terms of understanding what the treaty is about.

onemorechance

Temptamperu wrote: »

Is there a meh vote at all?

Spoil it or don't vote would equate to meh!

Temptamperu

onemorechance wrote: »

Spoil it or don't vote would equate to meh!

Few spliffs outside the polling station it is then :cool:

Duiske

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Well I don't really know too much about it to be honest, but I gather that if we vote no, we can be fined by the EU if the books aren't balanced as they'd like.

Nope. If we vote Yes, and then don't keep our deficit below 0.5%, we can be fined.

dxhound2005

Temptamperu wrote: »

Is there a meh vote at all?

You can vote NOT YES like John Watters.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0525/1224316662742.html

All I know for certain, less than a week from polling day, is that I will be voting Not Yes.

Not Yes is not the same as No, but neither is it a halfway-house between a positive and a negative. It is really a different kind of Yes.

opinion guy

My name is URL wrote: »

I've never liked Lucozade. Any soft drink which includes the word diarrhea on the bottle isn't to be trusted.

I see your point.

You know you might like this other drink called Bulmers/Magners Pear

Monsieur Folie

Ah feck off with the political agendas. We've established that this has nothing to do with politics so let's keep talking about the diarrhoea-inducing soft drink instead of polluting another thread with political nonsense. =(

TeddyTedson

Ulster says No
Lucozade sponsor Lunster loike so it might have something to do with the Ruggar.

cactus86

yes! yes! yes! yes! yes!

superluck

If you vote yes, be prepared for the consequences, it's gonna get ugly.

Monsieur Folie

superluck wrote: »

If you vote yes, be prepared for the consequences, it's gonna get ugly.

Ireland votes yes to Lucozade!

The only things that are going to get ugly because of that are the poor, poor toilets. =(

opinion guy

Wow - just discovered Lucozade was invented in Cork :eek:

Sergeant

Perhaps this thread is an insidious attempt to promote Lucozade on Ireland's most popular message board? It contains subtle advertising and subliminal messaging, and they intend to get us all hooked on the drink, so we become fat and bloated, and therefore cannot see what is happening before our very eyes!!!

:mad:

alphabeat

NO
is the new YES

and dont forget it

Guy:Incognito

RichieC wrote: »

Reasons I've heard for voting yes thus far "sure aren't shinners agin it" " declan ganley is voting no" ect.

havent heard a real reason for voting yes yet.

Whereas all the reasons to vote no are so compelling?

Claiming voteing yes will result in years of austerity, but mysteriously not saying anythign about voteing no.

Country costs €15b a year more to run than we take in. Theres no way to spin that other than to cut spending by €15b.

People keep whinging about voting no to stick it to governments and it was mishandling of funds by politicians that has us where we are but failing to level that against those same politicians having budget limits put on them to stop any more mismanagement.

Mint Sauce

LOL. I'll say it again. This marketing campaign has no relavence what so ever to the treaty, so much so its been around long before the need for a referendum was even discussed.

Guy:Incognito

irish-stew wrote: »

LOL. I'll say it again. This marketing campaign has no relavence what so ever to the treaty, so much so its been around long before the need for a referendum was even discussed.

Thats what those sneaky yes campaigners want you to think......................