Have the no campaign no scruples or standards?

meglome

Walking around town today I decided I'd check out all the posters. I think pretty much all of the posters are poor for different reasons. As I've said previously I'm no fan of how our referenda are run. The government posters are aspirational slogans which are pretty rubbish and fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things, though at least they are positive. Honestly though I've come to the conclusion that the no campaign have no scruples or standards whatsoever and will do anything to get what they believe they want. Their posters are often scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Apologies for the size of all of this.


Bankers treaty? what? No cuts and charges when we're borrowing one third of all government spending?
Does this say No for Jobs?


How do they figure this?


I for one can't wait to go back to the 'good ole days' when we were poor, miserable and abused by priests.


Where does the money come from? And what the hell have water and household charges got to do with this treaty? They're not mentioned in it.


I seem to recall anyone from outside Ireland who pushed for a Yes vote to Lisbon was interfering and bullying. Must be okay when the no camp ship them in.


Emm the last government already bailed out the banks. Time machine anyone?


You mean the fiscal limits which are already law here.


Stopping austerity if we vote no eh? I'd really like to see them explaining why there was still austerity if we voted no. Tell some more lies I'm sure.


Really? How?


Completely lie. (Which someone has written on it in marker)


Good poster, terrible shíte on it.


Is there a connection?


I wonder what lie they'd tell when there was still austerity after a no vote?


A building sized banner from the Mandate trade Union. But not scaremongering as it's the no side doing it.


So big and pink (Mick Wallace pink that is) and bullshítty. Why lie on a poster when you can lie on a whole building.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-29%2012.15.35.jpg
No to upward only rents, no to political liars, no to fiscal compact - building sized on Grafton Street. I think our friend here doesn't do irony, calling for a no to political liars while comparing that and upward only rents to the fiscal treaty. A fiscal treaty which has nothing whatsoever to do with either of those things, so proving him to be a political liar.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-29%2015.20.15.jpg
Republican Sinn Fein - Fight the powa

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-28%2017.20.59.jpg
As it's so cute and small and pink.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-28%2017.22.42.jpg
Oooohhhh scary

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-28%2014.21.19.jpg
Fiscal prudence... those bastards.

christmas2012

Apparently it will strengthen laws they want to put in place so ya it will write in the household and water charges..
But im not sure what the no side have to offer,can they get access to low interest money if we need to borrow again?
They dont seem to have an alternative all they have said is vote no etc..But havent come up with any solutions of how do deal with the crisis were in..

seamus

It would be nice if these various groups would just be honest and say, "If you hate the EU like we do, then vote No".

They might even get a few more votes that way. As it is, they know that the Irish are still very pro-Europe so they need to invent lies in order to make people think that voting No is a good idea.

I particularly like the ULA one that says "Demand Jobs". I don't think two words have ever quite captured the socalist fallacy so eloquently and succinctly.

oscarBravo

christmas2012 wrote: »

Apparently it will strengthen laws they want to put in place so ya it will write in the household and water charges..

There is no mention, in either the treaty or the proposed amendment, of household or water charges.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I love the exasperation that comes across in the simple statement 'This is incorrect information!', it really speaks to me, I don't know how many times I incredulously utter that exact phrase every time I delve into cesspit of 'argument' that constitutes this treaty campaign!

It's just a beautiful response to the lies from an obviously honest, rational and logical mind. Whoever it was is baffled, because of their own inherent honesty, that anyone would do something like placing 'incorrect information' in the public sphere.

The cursive script and double underline are just the icing on the cake!

GarIT

I'd vote no to anything that gives Europe more power. I don't think the EU should be anything more than an agreement of free trade. Once again I'll admit that the no campaign is terrible, It always has been.

The Waltzing Consumer

Not completely related to posters but I do find the standards, or scruples as you say , of some of the No posters very low particularly online.

Example, I saw this article on thejournal.ie and whilst it is still new and posted a very short time, it is indicative of comment sections in most websites.

http://www.thejournal.ie/a-yes-vote-likely-says-poll-of-small-firm-owners-465917-May2012/

So pretty much, it was survey by the small firms association, a group representing about 8000 small businesses in Ireland, about the Fiscal treaty.

The main findings out of the 2500 surveys distributed and 872 returned were:
83% thought it would be a Yes vote
97% thought a yes vote is good for certainty regarding the financing of the state
96% thought a yes vote will require future Governments to behave responsibly in fiscal planning.
95% thought a yes vote would give confidence to invest and create jobs and will help stablise the Euro and EU.
99% thought that along with this treaty, it was important for a separate growth agenda to be included (Gov have acknowledged this many times)

So what are the comments and probably the future comments?
They believe these are scare tactics, one poster does not believe these surveys are credible and is IBEC propaganda and another ignores the SFA respondents with some lame joke about the others not being able to pay their bills.

Now, all you have to ask, if the surveys were all in favour of a No vote, would they be so skeptical? No, they would be printing this stuff on their leaflets. Unfortunately, the small businesses, a backbone of the domestic economy who SF have been yapping on about, are clearly and overwhelmingly in favour of this treaty. But there seems to be no standards for a lot of the No campaigners when faced with a lot of these facts. They have a lot of unions supporting No, fair enough, and they will use surveys, polls when it is in their favour, fair enough, but when it is not going their way, they have zero standards.

Max Power1

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

No it fluppin doesn't.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, sorry if this has been done before. I just found an old file on my computer from the time of the last Lison treaty where I'd listed some of the lies that were told by the no campaign. It had plain old lies like the one about the EU having taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters but the ones I'm interested in here are things that they said would happen if we voted yes, i.e. they were saying that voting yes would allow something to happen where voting no would prevent it.

This is the list:

1. The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84
2. Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack
3. We would lose our neutrality
4. It would create a European superstate
5. Abortion would be made legal
6. Gay marriage would be made legal
7. Euthanasia would be made legal
8. The death penalty would be made legal
9. The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on
10. Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
11. During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
12. Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
13. The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
14. We would lose the right to referendums
15. Our constitution would be null and void
16. Healthcare and education would be privatised
17. We would be forced to increase military spending
18. The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
19. We would lose our veto in all areas
20. A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
21. Tony Blair would become the EU president

...

And as I've said to you multiple times our exports are booming.

The Waltzing Consumer

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

But jobs are created. Just look at today, amazon and another web firm announced over 100 jobs. No one will take away from the horrendous unemployment, but jobs are created and the focus should be to reduce unemployment and improve skills. You can't do this overnight, IT companies are killing for skilled workers, but it takes time for hundreds of thousands of people to be retrained. It's a slow road.

I think the posters are crap with those type of slogans, but I know the difference between "vote yes to jobs" meaning let us create an infrastructure and environment attractive to create employment, or "vote yes for jobs" to magically appear from nothing.

seamus

How does it pale in comparison?

Surely the level of deceit is what you should be measuring it on? "Yes to Jobs" was certainly a vague and annoyingly incomplete message, but with a reasonable message behidn it that support for the EU is key to bringing in job to the country.

It's in no way and outright lie like many of the above posters. At this stage I see half the posters with a big Angela Merkel on them. They're only a step away from photoshopping a small moustache and an S.S. uniform onto her. How is that less reprehensible than a simple statement about the likely benefits to Ireland of a "Yes" vote.

And before you say, "Where are the jobs", in case you haven't noticed, there are thousands of vacancies in this country that have been created over the last twelve months which can't be filled. There are your jobs.

GarIT

You can't say the Lisbon treaty did or did not create jobs. We don't have an Ireland today after a no vote to compare with. Both sides are wrong. Nobody knows if Lisbon had any influence on jobs.

One thing that baffles me is why a poll matters? I can't understand why someone would vote yes because the majority are. I estimate that the number of people in the country that have read and understood the Fiscal treaty completely are in the hundreds possibly low thousands. The "vote yes because 2 million other people (who also don't know what's going on) are" idea, doesn't sit well with me. I have never voted with the majority. I either understand what I'm voting on or I don't vote.

Just on the theme of propaganda and lies until recently it was on the Fine Gael website that "all of the other EU countries have agreed to the treaty". That is very misleading. In reality all of the leaders representing the other countries agreed to ask the people of their country to vote, no country as a whole had agreed to the treaty at that time.

christmas2012

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is no mention, in either the treaty or the proposed amendment, of household or water charges.

then why are they stating it in their placards surely they could be done for libel..

Scofflaw

christmas2012 wrote: »

then why are they stating it in their placards surely they could be done for libel..

No, they can't be done for libel (nobody is being libeled), and they can't even be done for false advertising (advertising standards don't apply to political claims).

You are free to put up pretty much whatever you think might sway a few votes, even if it's completely false, or even completely impossible. You can claim that the EU will invade Ireland, you can claim that Fine Gael will turn off gravity, or that Merkel will blot out the sun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Waltzing Consumer

GarIT wrote: »

Just on the theme of propaganda and lies until recently it was on the Fine Gael website that "all of the other EU countries have agreed to the treaty". That is very misleading. In reality all of the leaders representing the other countries agreed to ask the people of their country to vote, no country as a whole had agreed to the treaty at that time.

Eh, 25 EU states signed off on the Treaty, "agreeing" in other words to the Treaty. The two that did not were the UK and Czech Republic. It will come into effect when 12 or more states ratify it.

Only Ireland has a referendum so I have no idea where you are getting your idea that all the leaders of the other countries are putting the treaty to a referendum.

This is also bizarre for a paragraph giving out about lies. Greece, Portugal and Slovenia have all ratified it. 6 countries and us are in the process of ratification whilst the remaining countries have not started ratification but have a timetable to.

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/the-stability-treaty-ratification-map---infographic

Is it not a bit silly giving out about lies and propaganda followed by two absolute lies that are so easily found with a quick google search?

Pete_Cavan

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Now, all you have to ask, if the surveys were all in favour of a No vote, would they be so skeptical? No, they would be printing this stuff on their leaflets.

They might take select pieces of information, ignore the conclusions of the authors and generally misquote it to suggest it supports their ideas when, in reality, the opposite is true...

meglome

Added 5 new posters to the OP. There are no posters everywhere.

RandomName2

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

meglome wrote: »

No it fluppin doesn't.

In my opinion the No side has learned well from the Yes side from Lisbon: make one big lie that has some vague (incorrect) connection to the treaty, have all the parties and groups on your side hammer home the same message, never coherently argue the point, use all the political strength you can muster (particularly European) to back your argument, and leave yourself with enough wriggle room to be able to back away from your crap after the referendum.

Imo the Yes side set the standard; and are not edifying themselves this time round with their fictitious promises of investment.

The Yes side during Lisbon realised that what people really worried about at the time was losing their jobs and not getting employment. The No side realise this time round that what people are really worried about is high taxes. Go figure.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

(advertising standards don't apply to political claims).

... perhaps they should

evercloserunion

RandomName2 wrote: »

... perhaps they should

Honestly, I think that EU treaties would pass with much greater ease if standards were enforced in referendum campaigns.

The Waltzing Consumer

evercloserunion wrote: »

Honestly, I think that EU treaties would pass with much greater ease if standards were enforced in referendum campaigns.

Same with tv debates.

I hate how, for example, the yes side said we have no veto on the ESM, the No side said we do have a veto. Now the referendum commission said we don't and the language of the treaty says we don't, but for some bizarre reason, in debates, the moderator will treat both arguments as if they were equal. Why can't a moderator say for any fact that is established "No you are wrong". Along with advertising, debate moderators should be firm with facts but allow sides to argue their points.

leeroybrown

I was undecided about whether Yes / No was really the best position for Ireland in the long run but even before I analysed the facts the No campaign had swung me completely towards Yes with their campaign. Pretty much everything I've heard from a No campaigner's mouth has been either completely untrue or a deliberately misused fact. Plenty more people I know have a similar view of the campaign. Congrats guys...

Einhard

I think the No campaign is indicative of the immaturity and irresponsibility of a large section of the Irish electorate. Some people are voting no on grounds that I can respect, if not agree- for example, GarIT's decision to vote not because he wants a slimmed down, less political EU. However, the majority of those who intend to vote No that I have spoken to are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the Treaty. One quite educated friend announced the other night that he was voting No as a slap in the face to the current government. He hadn't read the Treaty, ddidn't particulary know what it was about, and yet was intending to take a position on it. The mind boggles.

And I think this is indicative of what's so wrong with the Irish electorate. Very few people actually take politics seriously. It's a game to be played. The problem however, is that it's a game that we play incredibly poorly. Most of the elctorate are entirely unsophisticated when it comes to politics, and making rationale, societal decsions. Thus, FF buys elections with promises of financial largesse, even though it's clear that it cannot be sustained; thus, in the aftermath of Lisbon I, polls showed that many who voted No didn't actually understand the treaty; thus people complain that they haven't been spoonfed information on treaties and referenda even though a huge amount of information exists online and elsewhere...

I could go on and on but it's depressing. Despite everything, nothing has changed. As an electorate, we're just too damn stupid in general to act in a responsible manner. We're still only too willing to run to the nearest political snakeoil-selling huckster for some ephermeral comfort, and damn the conserquences bulding up on the horizon. I thought we'd have learned a lesson after the recession and the failures of FF and others, but I was wrong. And that's what makes it doubly depressing. Indeed, that's why I wouldn't particularly care if we transferred our entire political sovereignty to Berlin in the morn- we've shown again and again that we can't handle grown up political responsibility.

later12

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

I haven't seen any posters promising jobs and investment on June 1st.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

As I said in the OP rubbish slogans are one (unwelcome) thing but downright lies are far worse. And they are far more insidious as they seek to corrupt our political process, all the while complaining that the process is corrupt. The whole campaign is a disgrace.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't seen any posters promising jobs and investment on June 1st.

What?

But a Yes vote is a vote for investment. And employment. Well that's what the signs say. I can't imagine somebody would lie on a campaign sign I mean the Yes side have standards and scruples.

Einhard

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

I, for one, think you're better than that.

The Waltzing Consumer

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0221/paypal.html
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/item/27279-ibm-to-create-several-hundr
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1024410.shtml
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/50-new-high-grade-technology-jobs-announced-for-limerick-465661-May2012/
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/irish-shopping-website-creates-40-new-jobs-in-dublin-465600-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/140-jobs-to-be-created-by-seafood-companies-462906-May2012/
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/massive-investment-planned-for-intels-leixlip-plant-461845-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/38-per-cent-of-jobbridge-interns-go-into-full-time-jobs-460909-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/70-jobs-to-be-created-in-dublin-by-gift-voucher-company-460476-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/nama-to-invest-e2-billion-in-unfinished-developments-460470-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/new-springboard-courses-to-offer-over-6000-education-places-458143-May2012/

I got tired after two pages of searching, but it is certainly good news that in two pages of searches, so many announcements can be seen. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the Government should stop these companies, investments, schemes?

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

What?

But a Yes vote is a vote for investment. And employment. Well that's what the signs say. I can't imagine somebody would lie on a campaign sign I mean the Yes side have standards and scruples.

Is it your considered opinion that there can be no possible difference in outcome between a 'yes' and a 'no' vote on the climate for jobs and investment in this country?

In other words, do you firmly believe that there is no conceivable way in which either outcome could make any difference whatsoever on the investment decisions of businesses?

later12

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I got tired after two pages of searching, but it is certainly good news that in two pages of searches, so many announcements can be seen. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the Government should stop these companies, investments, schemes?

Given how the Stability & Roses Treaty has yet to be ratified, I'm not really seeing the link between ratification and jobs.

These corporations have decided to expand or create investment in Ireland prior to the Treaty. If there is a serious link between investment and the Treaty, we would expect to see them holding off until the outcome.

But I'm sure I'll be proved wrong. Roll on Stability.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it your considered opinion that there can be no possible difference in outcome between a 'yes' and a 'no' vote on the climate for jobs and investment in this country?

No. Not "no possible difference". It's difficult to measure a potential benefit to ratification with any degree of confidence.

But that's quite a different thing to saying "Yes to Investment, Yes to Growth", isn't it.

PeadarCo

later12 wrote: »

What?

But a Yes vote is a vote for investment. And employment. Well that's what the signs say. I can't imagine somebody would lie on a campaign sign I mean the Yes side have standards and scruples.

Given that it looks like all major business groups appear to be on the yes side , it can be said at the very least that it appears the people who will create jobs feel that yes is the best bet when compared to voting no.

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

No. Not "no possible difference". It's difficult to measure a potential benefit to ratification with any degree of confidence.

But that's quite a different thing to saying "Yes to Investment, Yes to Growth", isn't it.

If businesses have expressed the view that they are more likely to invest in the event of ratification, it doesn't seem entirely out of order to say "Yes to Investment".

But if you're trying to draw an equivalence between "Yes to Investment" and the various slogans about permanent austerity or household charges, we'll agree to differ.

The Waltzing Consumer

later12 wrote: »

Given how the Stability & Roses Treaty has yet to be ratified, I'm not really seeing the link between ratification and jobs.

These corporations have decided to expand or create investment in Ireland prior to the Treaty. If there is a serious link between investment and the Treaty, we would expect to see them holding off until the outcome.

But I'm sure I'll be proved wrong. Roll on Stability.

Cause that's why nearly all, have not read any No businesses yet, have advocated a yes vote.

Count Dooku

What was the reason for Yes campaign print new posters?
Old would work fine

Richard tea

Count Dooku wrote: »

What was the reason for Yes campaign print new posters?
Old would work fine

This post destroys Op's original post. Mods you may close this thread now. Thank you:)

meglome

Richard tea wrote: »

This post destroys Op's original post. Mods you may close this thread now. Thank you:)

My OP is that rubbish slogans are indeed rubbish, but downright lies are downright wrong. Something not clear about the difference?

dr.bollocko

So is the magical pot of free money that ends the austerity going to be opened after the referendum or before?

Bullseye1

Ill probably be voting yes as I agree with not spending more than your taking in. And I agree that the No side have been spouting alot of rubbish but some of their points are not unreasonable. Especially with reference to possible amendments being implemented. That the proposed fund is no where near as big as it probably needs to be.

But then again the yes side have also been guilty of doomsday messages also. Tougher budgets much sooner, possible that our ratings will be downgraded, investors postponing future further investment. That this will be a one off vote yet there is nothing legally stopping us voting on this again.

It's likely we will need another bailout as current growth figures are nowhere near as good as both the government and the Troika had predicted when it comes to reducing our deficit.

d'Oracle

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Same with tv debates.

I hate how, for example, the yes side said we have no veto on the ESM, the No side said we do have a veto. Now the referendum commission said we don't and the language of the treaty says we don't, but for some bizarre reason, in debates, the moderator will treat both arguments as if they were equal. Why can't a moderator say for any fact that is established "No you are wrong". Along with advertising, debate moderators should be firm with facts but allow sides to argue their points.

Because we don't have moderators, we have TV/Radio personalities.
Who don't understand the role of a moderator bar time keeping.

beeftotheheels

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So is the magical pot of free money that ends the austerity going to be opened after the referendum or before?

It won't be opened at all mate. The Government will keep it for themselves and the other "insiders" of "official Ireland".

ixtlan

One would hope that the Referendum Commission would be more proactive in making statements of fact one way or the other, but they appear to take a similar approach to RTE where they don't want to say the no side is lying.

For example, Chairman of the Referendum Commission Mr Justice Kevin Feeney was asked on Morning Ireland about access to the ESM. He stated there was no access without a yes vote, but he was careful not to criticise the no side.

A few days later Gerry Adams was asked about this comment that there was no access... was the Chairman wrong? His evasive answer, if I may be allowed to paraphrase, was that the Chairman was reciting sections from the treaty but not making a judgement on what they meant. In fact he said "He recited it well...", implying that the Chairman was a liar/idiot/fool. I hoped that the Chairman would come out to clarify that he had given a considered opinion on the treaty and was not simply "reciting" it, but no... Ridiculous...

Ix.

BlitzKrieg

Count Dooku wrote: »

What was the reason for Yes campaign print new posters?
Old would work fine

So do old *no* posters

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2260/206440.jpg

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

My OP is that rubbish slogans are indeed rubbish, but downright lies are downright wrong. Something not clear about the difference?

Austerity is having less than 60% public deficit.

See? No lies.

Lisbon/ Fiscal Stability for jobs/recovery is some random jobs created after the referendum regardless of net gain/loss and cause.

See? No lies.

RandomName2

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So do old *no* posters

abortion/euthanasia is looking a lot more fresh than job cornucopia mind you...

molloyjh

ixtlan wrote: »

One would hope that the Referendum Commission would be more proactive in making statements of fact one way or the other, but they appear to take a similar approach to RTE where they don't want to say the no side is lying.

For example, Chairman of the Referendum Commission Mr Justice Kevin Feeney was asked on Morning Ireland about access to the ESM. He stated there was no access without a yes vote, but he was careful not to criticise the no side.

A few days later Gerry Adams was asked about this comment that there was no access... was the Chairman wrong? His evasive answer, if I may be allowed to paraphrase, was that the Chairman was reciting sections from the treaty but not making a judgement on what they meant. In fact he said "He recited it well...", implying that the Chairman was a liar/idiot/fool. I hoped that the Chairman would come out to clarify that he had given a considered opinion on the treaty and was not simply "reciting" it, but no... Ridiculous...

Ix.

The problem is that if the RC make a statement of fact that is counter to what the No side say it'll be spun as the RC just being a Government mouthpeice.

If Lisbon taught us anything at all it's that the truth is utterly irrelevasnt. People will happily believe what they choose to believe, fact or not. To a large extent we're a country of people who love to moan and grumble, so it's far easier for a lot of people to believe the conspiracy than the simple truth. And if the conspiracy is handed to us on a silver platter with some lovely posters then it's sure as hell a lot easier than reading up on the Treaty itself. When things are crappy people love to complain. Give them something to complain about and they'll latch onto it.

meglome

seamus wrote: »

It would be nice if these various groups would just be honest and say, "If you hate the EU like we do, then vote No".

They might even get a few more votes that way. As it is, they know that the Irish are still very pro-Europe so they need to invent lies in order to make people think that voting No is a good idea.

I particularly like the ULA one that says "Demand Jobs". I don't think two words have ever quite captured the socialist fallacy so eloquently and succinctly.

I've actually gotten a couple of people to admit that even though they were arguing we should wait for a 'growth pact' in the treaty they would still vote no even if they got it. It's just so disingenuous.

Godge

RandomName2 wrote: »

In my opinion the No side has learned well from the Yes side from Lisbon: make one big lie that has some vague (incorrect) connection to the treaty, have all the parties and groups on your side hammer home the same message, never coherently argue the point, use all the political strength you can muster (particularly European) to back your argument, and leave yourself with enough wriggle room to be able to back away from your crap after the referendum.

Imo the Yes side set the standard; and are not edifying themselves this time round with their fictitious promises of investment.

The Yes side during Lisbon realised that what people really worried about at the time was losing their jobs and not getting employment. The No side realise this time round that what people are really worried about is high taxes. Go figure.

you obviously have a short memory only going back to Lisbon. Having been around a while longer and having had to listen to lies from all sides, I must say that the one I am still waiting for is the "abortion on demand" consequence that was promised by the no side in the very first referendum caused by the Crotty case way back in the late 1980s.

Godge

later12 wrote: »

No. Not "no possible difference". It's difficult to measure a potential benefit to ratification with any degree of confidence.

But that's quite a different thing to saying "Yes to Investment, Yes to Growth", isn't it.

So correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that there is a difference between voting yes and no, and that a yes vote will bring more jobs but the measurement of that effect (however minor but positive) is not possible?

meglome

meglome wrote: »

So big and pink and bullshítty. Why lie on a poster when you can lie on a whole building.

Saw this online about this banner, made me laugh.

There once was a man named Mick,
He took the bank’s money real quick,
His plans weren’t the best,
So he moved to the left
His hypocrisy makes me feel sick

Vote Yes