Have the no campaign no scruples or standards?

Idbatterim

Thus, FF buys elections with promises of financial largesse, even though it's clear that it cannot be sustained;

This is exactly what FG and Labour are buying now, craving their cheap unsustainable credit!

C14N

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, no a million times no. Whether or not Lisbon created jobs is debatable, although just today during the news part way through Matt Cooper's referendum debate it was announced that with the 100+ new jobs from Amazon and a few others today, there have been over 4000 jobs in the ICT sector alone this year, the same number as all of in 2011. So 8000 technical jobs in 18 months in one sector isn't bad for a country our size and with our situation. Maybe Lisbon helped it, maybe it didn't, it's impossible to know without seeing an alternative scenario.

However, NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH that the no campaigns promised have come true at all, nor have there been any indications that there will be. Another poster has given a comprehensive list of the No promises so I won't bother repeating them.

(sorry for large writing, just really wanted to emphasize that).

Richard tea wrote: »

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

I was genuinely wondering if this was a joke or not? Is it? Sarcasm can sometimes get lost online...

With regards to the OP, you beat me to it. I had taken some photos around town today, all of which you've posted and then some, although we both missed the one that is no doubt a copyright violation with a picture of Mr Burns from The Simpsons saying something about the European elite having €3 trillion stored away while 25 million are unemployed. No details given of course about who these people are or how many countries they had to put together to get the 25 million figure.

It's disgusting how outright dishonest and desperate they have gotten lately. I have to question whether they even believe what they're doing is right. There may have once been a legitimate debate to have on the topic but it has gotten lost in the constant pushing of irrelevant scares and pure misinformation on the part of the No campaign. I despise the overuse of the word "disgraceful", but I think it is apt here. I have to say though, as much as I dislike SF, they seem to be the quietest of the bunch here. Most of this is done by the Socialist Party, Libertas and some independent TDs.

It is times like this that I start to think we should need a license to vote that requires us to pass a test to make sure people have a rudimentary understanding of politics and finance so they won't get fooled by tripe like this.

I just want to point out my favourite one of all, that you were kind enough to put up here and which I've only seen today:

Don't vote in fear
Stop austerity here
Vote no

Did the person who wrote that really miss the sheer hypocrisy they managed to cram into eight short words and one long one?

Line 1: "don't vote based purely on emotional instinct, that will doubtlessly be a quick and irrational decision".
Lines 2+3: "just kidding motherf***er! if you vote yes you and everyone you love will be poor forever!"

And while I know this rant has dragged on I just want to mention one more thing. At the end of Cooper's debate this evening, the question was put to the audience of whether they wanted to see our Taoiseach at the debate (or any debate), arguing his case. There was a unanimous "yes" response and the FG representative from the Yes side, Minister for Agriculture Simon Convey, said that Kenny declined the debates because they gave too much credibility to the people on the No panel. I've never been a big fan of Enda but I have to say I actually respected him for that, especially with the actual debate in hindsight. It would have been embarrassing to have our head of state actually discussing this with the people he would have been up against.

later12

Godge wrote: »

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?

I certainly didn't say that voting Yes would create or encourage employment. Voting No may discourage employment, but maybe in a way that is already inevitable, since our voting Yes or No does not change the fact that this Treaty will go ahead and weaken the peripheral European economy in 2012 and 2013 regardless.

There are good reasons for voting both Yes and No. Jobs isn't one of them - or at least cannot reasonably be confirmed as such.

meglome

C14N wrote: »

With regards to the OP, you beat me to it. I had taken some photos around town today, all of which you've posted and then some, although we both missed the one that is no doubt a copyright violation with a picture of Mr Burns from The Simpsons saying something about the European elite having €3 trillion stored away while 25 million are unemployed. No details given of course about who these people are or how many countries they had to put together to get the 25 million figure.

Didn't see the Simpson's one. One other I'd like to post is the one one the corner of Stephen's Greens with Merkel standing like Hitler "Democracy is dead etc etc", which has been claimed for every treaty with Europe since 1973. I mean it's only been 40 odd years and it still hasn't happened... any minute now though I'm sure.

C14N wrote: »

It's disgusting how outright dishonest and desperate they have gotten lately. I have to question whether they even believe what they're doing is right. There may have once been a legitimate debate to have on the topic but it has gotten lost in the constant pushing of irrelevant scares and pure misinformation on the part of the No campaign. I despise the overuse of the word "disgraceful", but I think it is apt here. I have to say though, as much as I dislike SF, they seem to be the quietest of the bunch here. Most of this is done by the Socialist Party, Libertas and some independent TDs.

They have stooped lower as the campaign has gone on, presumably in reaction to the polls showing a Yes vote. Though you're right SF have not been the worst poster wise.

What amazes me is money is being pumped in here from anti-EU groups to pay for these no posters and the idiots here are taking the money. Sorry but anyone who thinks we'd be better off without the EU needs their head examined.

C14N wrote: »

It is times like this that I start to think we should need a license to vote that requires us to pass a test to make sure people have a rudimentary understanding of politics and finance so they won't get fooled by tripe like this.

Genuinely I despair some days, when people who have no grasp of what's going on will sit and argue like a twenty year veteran of economists. It is incredibly depressing that many people will believe some bloke down the pub over any member of the government. And will repeat "Ah yeah but (insert name here) was right about the Lisbon treaty". But I still can't find any no campaigner who was right about the Lisbon treaty.

C14N

Don't forget the Libertas posters. Just realised you didn't have any up. I don't have any pictures of the posters themselves but thankfully, Ganley was nice enough to put some up on his website (or at least versions of them).



Right, we're trapped to a ball and chain with the treaty. And here I heard claims from the No side that the Yes campaign was bullying people into voting their way.




More of Ganley's strange assumptions that we can use this treaty to bargain a better deal on the bank debt we've already guaranteed.

Count Dooku

C14N wrote: »

More of Ganley's strange assumptions that we can use this treaty to bargain a better deal on the bank debt we've already guaranteed.

The only thing what have been guaranteed is that we will be able to build more debt if Spain or Italy won't get access to ESM first

meglome

C14N wrote: »

Don't forget the Libertas posters. Just realised you didn't have any up. I don't have any pictures of the posters themselves but thankfully, Ganley was nice enough to put some up on his website (or at least versions of them).

Right, we're trapped to a ball and chain with the treaty. And here I heard claims from the No side that the Yes campaign was bullying people into voting their way.

More of Ganley's strange assumptions that we can use this treaty to bargain a better deal on the bank debt we've already guaranteed.

I stated out just to get the more outrageous ones but quickly realised they were mostly pretty outrageous.


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.

leftleg

meglome wrote: »

I stated out just to get the more outrageous ones but quickly realised they were mostly pretty outrageous.


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.

Look there are terrible posters on both sides of this treaty showing both sides to be both liars and attempting to score cheap political brownie points that are both irrelevant and untrue.

If its the truth then you have failed miserably as both sides have been lying about this treaty and its consequences ins ome way on all there posters.

This idea that "my side tells more of the truth than your side" is complete rubbish; both camps are well tuned in how to bend the truth to satisfy there ends;

meglome

leftleg wrote: »

Look there are terrible posters on both sides of this treaty showing both sides to be both liars and attempting to score cheap political brownie points that are both irrelevant and untrue.

Whats exactly is your point here that can be shown to be appearing on the no campaign but not on the yes campaign.

If its the truth then you have failed miserably as both sides have been lying about this treaty and its consequences.

Really? The Yes ones I've seen, and I've seen an awful lot of them, are all aspirational slogans. I personally don't think they're much use to anyone but there are no direct lies I can see on any of them.

As far as I can tell nearly all of the no posters are misdirections or lies. So if anyone is trying to "score cheap political brownie points" it's whomever put up those posters. And when they did put them up they opened the door to citizens like myself to call them out on just how dishonest they are.

ixtlan

leftleg wrote: »

If its the truth then you have failed miserably as both sides have been lying about this treaty and its consequences ins ome way on all there posters.

Just repeating the what the others have said. The thing is that the Yes posters are generally vague and arguable. Many of the No posters are specific and simply wrong.

In the example you replied to... No to upward-only rents... Let's consider that. Is anyone outside Ireland interested in this? Do they even know about this issue? Is there any possibility one way or the other that a Yes/No could possibly affect this issue? So why on Earth use that as a reason to vote no?! And put it on a giant poster!

Ix.

View

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.

I have to confess that my recollection is different.

In Lisbon I, the NO side had the "dubious" posters up and running real fast - the YES side rather foolishly then spent that campaign engaging in "whack-a-mole" in an effort to counter the NO side's claims.

In Lisbon II, the YES side had learned their lesson and - rightly or wrongly - picked a central message to push throughout the campaign. The NO side hated it and have whined about it ever since because there is basically no way they can ever claim that a NO would be better for jobs here.

leftleg

ixtlan wrote: »

Do they even know about this issue? Is there any possibility one way or the other that a Yes/No could possibly affect this issue? So why on Earth use that as a reason to vote no?!

So the yes campaign for jobs will absolutely definitely have the country overflowing with jobs; we dont absolutely know so why put that poster up; ie both sides guilty of flagrant lies;

so in effect the yes camp have no scrupples either by all this reasoning.

Reekwind

meglome wrote: »

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.

Either that or it's a broadside against an austerity programme that's squeezing many vulnerable sections of society (of which climbing rent in inner Dublin is one manifestation) and the pampered political elite that continue to champion this programme while pleading that 'we're all in this together'. All of which simply crystallises around the treaty debate

Which would make more sense than indulging an overly legalistic reading of everything. Of course the treaty makes no mention of Dublin rent rates but it doesn't take a genius to see how that fits into the ongoing debate over austerity; something that is very much relevant to the vote this week. Even if the word 'austerity' is not mentioned in the compact itself...

meglome

leftleg wrote: »

So the yes campaign for jobs will absolutely definitely have the country overflowing with jobs; we dont absolutely know so why put that poster up; ie both sides guilty of flagrant lies;

so in effect the yes camp have no scrupples either by all this reasoning.

There are posters up now with yes for jobs on them?


Does this say No for Jobs?

leftleg

meglome wrote: »

There are posters up now with yes for jobs on them?

"yes my poster is truer than yours"; again both sides guilty of the same thing so your point is irrelevant.

meglome

Reekwind wrote: »

Either that or it's a broadside against an austerity programme that's squeezing many vulnerable sections of society (of which climbing rent in inner Dublin is one manifestation) and the pampered political elite that continue to champion this programme while pleading that 'we're all in this together'. All of which simply crystallises around the treaty debate

Which would make more sense than indulging an overly legalistic reading of everything. Of course the treaty makes no mention of Dublin rent rates but it doesn't take a genius to see how that fits into the ongoing debate over austerity; something that is very much relevant to the vote this week. Even if the word 'austerity' is not mentioned in the compact itself...

Wow such a well written piece which makes no logical sense. We are having austerity as we borrow one third of all government spending. There it is in a nutshell. We have previously signed up to all the fiscal limits in other agreements with Europe, some from 20 years ago.

That banner is very clear in what it suggests, that there is a link between upward only rents and the fiscal treaty, when there obviously isn't. It also comes across as someone with a beef against the government and considering there was a previous upward only rents banner there I think that's a good assumption.

If he has a beef with the government then he should direct that at them But by trying to trick people into voting no to the Fiscal Compact he's having a beef with us all. A dirty and selfish trick IMO.

meglome

leftleg wrote: »

"yes my poster is truer than yours"; again both sides guilty of the same thing so your point is irrelevant.

So to ask the question again. Are there posters up now that say 'Yes for Jobs' on them? As I didn't see any.

leftleg

meglome wrote: »

So to ask the question again. Are there posters up now that say 'Yes for Jobs' on them? As I didn't see any.

Sorry I dont actually keep tabs on all the posters put up; I have better things to do than stalk referendum posters;

As there was one posted up here already why bother either;

Look whether they do it now or not is irrelevant; the yes camp put up lies on there posters at some stage so they have as much scrupples as those "dastardly no campaigners" - by the title on this thread from you and your OP; If you find that hard to swallow then change the title of your thread.

You creep about taking photos of the posters so you can post them on boards and make people think that the yes camp has in some way an angelic honest agenda going on and that they would never say anything untrue. What shower did you come down in...this is politics buddy not battleship.

Reekwind

meglome wrote: »

Wow such a well written piece which makes no logical sense. We are having austerity as we borrow one third of all government spending. There it is in a nutshell. We have previously signed up to all the fiscal limits in other agreements with Europe, some from 20 years ago

I don't really care how you justify it but this government has committed to swinging budget cuts to reduce the deficit. We are about to vote on a treaty that will enshrine austerity economics (flying in the face of several decades of economic orthodoxy) in our constitution. And yes, that is different from whatever scraps of paper previous governments had signed up to

At the same time the debate is raging around Europe as to the merits of austerity programmes that appear to be hindering or preventing economic growth and only shutting the door to escaping this unsustainable debt. Now I don't particularly care for discussing any of this with you except to note that this is all entirely relevant to the treaty and the wider debate in which it sits

So get off your high horse and accept that for some people this treaty is more than a scrap of paper. For a lot of people it is a question of how they'll find jobs, how they'll pay the rent, how they'll cope with the continued recession. It's about squeezing living standards and how they've been disappointed by this government and the wider political class that's let them down. The Government's U-turn on the upward only rent clause is a perfect example of its perceived priorities

So the poster calls for a No to austerity and the politicians who are championing it. How entirely removed from the topic of the week... :rolleyes:

That banner is very clear in what it suggests, that there is a link between upward only rents and the fiscal treaty, when there obviously isn't

And what, the treaty also endorses 'lying politicians'? Don't be so ridiculously literal

The link is in the hardship that the current economic programme, the one we're being asked to write into national law, is inflicting on large sections of the population

View

leftleg wrote: »

Sorry I dont actually keep tabs on all the posters put up; I have better things to do than stalk referendum posters;

As there was one posted up here already why bother either;

Look whether they do it now or not is irrelevant; the yes camp put up lies on there posters at some stage so they have as much scrupples as those "dastardly no campaigners" - by the title on this thread from you and your OP; If you find that hard to swallow then change the title of your thread.

You creep about taking photos of the posters so you can post them on boards and make people think that the yes camp has in some way an angelic honest agenda going on and that they would never say anything untrue. What shower did you come down in...this is politics buddy not battleship.

Well, the difference is the YES side may veer into dishonesty, the NO side rarely if ever strays from dishonesty.

Which if we presume dishonesty has any effect at all on voting intentions, that largely negates any validity there is in using referenda to make decisions.

meglome

leftleg wrote: »

Sorry I dont actually keep tabs on all the posters put up; I have better things to do than stalk referendum posters;

So that would be a no then, you've not seen any posters with 'Yes for Jobs' on them.

leftleg wrote: »

As there was one posted up here already why bother either;

Oh it looked like one had been photoshopped on. Must look again.

leftleg wrote: »

Look whether they do it now or not is irrelevant; the yes camp put up lies on there posters at some stage so they have as much scrupples as those "dastardly no campaigners" - by the title on this thread from you and your OP; If you find that hard to swallow then change the title of your thread.

Find me a Yes poster that has a direct lie on it. If they are 'all the same' it should be easy.

leftleg wrote: »

You creep about taking photos of the posters so you can post them on boards and make people think that the yes camp has in some way an angelic honest agenda going on and that they would never say anything untrue. What shower did you come down in...this is politics buddy not battleship.

I had the unfortunate need to visit someone in a hospital a number of times and on the way along I took a picture here and there. Didn't realise that strolling along in the sun with your phone is called 'creeping' nowadays. Must be a strange place you live in.

Though I can't help but laugh at your anger here. The no camp look bad because they put the posters up in the first place, not because I took some pictures of them.

later12

meglome wrote: »

So to ask the question again. Are there posters up now that say 'Yes for Jobs' on them? As I didn't see any.

There are Votail Ta don fhostaíocht Fine Gael posters up, although rather curiously they have decided to translate this into "Vote Yes for a Working Ireland" on the English version.

molloyjh

leftleg wrote: »

So the yes campaign for jobs will absolutely definitely have the country overflowing with jobs; we dont absolutely know so why put that poster up; ie both sides guilty of flagrant lies;

so in effect the yes camp have no scrupples either by all this reasoning.

All the more reason to ignore ALL posters stuck up on lamp posts by complete strangers and actually open up the Treaty itself and read the thing. It's a bit dull but then so is this endless debate that has been all but ceaseless since Lisbon I. That we are giving this much time to posters means we obviously believe they have a significant impact. And if they do then this electorate probably deserve all that's coming to them.

seamus

Reekwind wrote: »

The Government's U-turn on the upward only rent clause is a perfect example of its perceived priorities

The upward-only rent clause is a red herring. Rental agreements are private contracts between private entities and the government cannot come along with law and make such a clause invalid. Somewhere, someone has convinced people that the government can save businesses who are stuck in upward-only rent agreements. It can't.
All it can do is make it illegal in future contracts, which seems a little pointless since any businessman these days would be a moron to sign a rental agreement with upward-only rent reviews (and I would argue that they were morons to sign them back then).

Like I say, a red herring. Non-issues with no relation to the treaty or even to the recession, being tacked onto this vote.

So the poster calls for a No to austerity

No it doesn't. It calls for a No to the treaty. A No to the treaty will result in more austerity.

later12

molloyjh wrote: »

That we are giving this much time to posters means we obviously believe they have a significant impact. And if they do then this electorate probably deserve all that's coming to them.

In fairness, this is a bit of an anorak's discussion.

I really don't think the average man on the 19A or the queue in Tesco is particularly preoccupied with these posters. Probably the wiser for it, too.

leftleg

meglome wrote: »

So that would be a no then, you've not seen any posters with 'Yes for Jobs' on them.



Oh it looked like one had been photoshopped on. Must look again.



Find me a Yes poster that has a direct lie on it. If they are 'all the same' it should be easy.



I had the unfortunate need to visit someone in a hospital a number of times and on the way along I took a picture here and there. Didn't realise that strolling along in the sun with your phone is called 'creeping' nowadays. Must be a strange place you live in.

Though I can't help but laugh at your anger here. The no camp look bad because they put the posters up in the first place, not because I took some pictures of them.

Look at all the bolded parts of your post; There is no anger in me at all; I find you quite funny actually;

If that poster of a yes poster is photoshopped go prove it so otherwise stop harping on about it because that poster makes a mockery of your whole thread.

And you didnt take a picture here and there, you took about twenty pictures here and there all over Dublin City Centre and Suburbs so please have some "scrupples" and stop lying.

And btw before you accuse me of anything, i am not a no campaigner, but i certainly dont go about photographing every dodgy poster around so I can score cheap political brownies on boards.

And yes i do live in a strange place, its called Dublin.

meglome

leftleg wrote: »

Look at all the bolded parts of your post; There is no anger in me at all; I find you quite funny actually;

And yet you were being quite stroppy from the off. Maybe that's your way.

leftleg wrote: »

L
If that poster of a yes poster is photoshopped go prove it so otherwise stop harping on about it because that poster makes a mockery of your whole thread.

There are literally thousands of posters about the city and country. I have no doubt that someone might have resurrected an old poster somewhere. There was a random Coir no poster from Lisbon posted in another thread and I didn't say a word about it. Because I'm actually talking about posters from now, not one random one from the last referendum. You think one old poster from Lisbon makes a mockery of what I said? Really? The posters I linked to are everywhere.
If you actually look back I asked you had you seen a 'Yes for Jobs' poster, not that one might exist somewhere.

leftleg wrote: »

L
And you didnt take a picture here and there, you took about twenty pictures here and there all over Dublin City Centre and Suburbs so please have some "scrupples" and stop lying.

Wow what an amaze balls person you are, to be able to tell where those pictures were taken when they are all cropped. I took all of those pictures going to and from between Christchurch and the Mater Hospital. If you'd like the full shots to prove that you're more than welcome.

leftleg wrote: »

And btw before you accuse me of anything, i am not a no campaigner, but i certainly dont go about photographing every dodgy poster around so I can score cheap political brownies on boards.

Gosh there's a rule now that says you can't stroll to the hospital to see your sick mother and take some shots of posters with your phone, entirely on the way. I hate myself now, what will I ever do.

The only one scoring cheaply is the people who put those posters up.

leftleg

meglome wrote: »

And yet you were being quite stroppy from the off. Maybe that's your way..

Yep but i dont get so angry I start a thread on boards about it.

meglome wrote: »

Because I'm actually talking about posters from now, not one random one from the last referendum. .

How do you know thats from the last referendum - more lazy assumptions me thinks

meglome wrote: »

I took all of those pictures going to and from between Christchurch and the Mater Hospital. .

meglome wrote: »

Gosh there's a rule now that says you can't stroll to the hospital to see your sick mother and take some shots of posters with your phone, entirely on the way. I hate myself now, what will I ever do.

The only one scoring cheaply is the people who put those posters up.

Wow i didnt know Ormand Quay and Grafton Street were on the way from Christchurch to the Eccles Street in Dublin 7. You sure you didnt take a detour there - or maybe the whole thing is just a lie and your as bad "as the unscruppilous no heads".

In fact you are, your as bad as them; the only difference between you and them is the letters on the posters.

meglome

leftleg wrote: »

Wow i didnt know Ormand Quay and Grafton Street were on the way from Christchurch to the Eccles Street in Dublin 7. You sure you didnt take a detour there - or maybe the whole thing is just a lie and your as bad "as the unscruppilous no heads".

Sorry I forget I took that one when I got off the Luas earlier, as I was walking past it.

And let me help you out here as you don't seem to know your way around Dublin.
https://maps.google.ie/maps?saddr=christchurch+dublin&daddr=eccles+street&hl=en&ll=53.346171,-6.267529&spn=0.017882,0.034246&sll=53.348912,-6.270275&sspn=0.017881,0.034246&geocode=FfT0LQMdZ0-g_yHL3KJoJnE1kg%3BFWgvLgMdNF-g_ylt8fBZfg5nSDH0LxcBBQaksw&dirflg=w&mra=ltm&t=m&z=15

Just a little past where the line crosses the Liffey is where the banner is. That time I was actually walking across the millennium bridge.

Scofflaw

Lads....

moderately,
Scofflaw

leftleg

meglome wrote: »

Sorry I forget I took that one when I got off the Luas earlier, as I was walking past it.

And let me help you out here as you don't seem to know your way around Dublin.

I do but when you say your going from Christchurch to the Mater and post pics of Grafton Street, wtf do you expect.

BlitzKrieg

How do you know thats from the last referendum - more lazy assumptions me thinks

lets see:



uses the old yestoeurope.ie weblink which does not link to a EU referendum website anymore so clearly it's not a poster that has been produced for this referendum.

On a related but distant tangent it seems yestoeurope.ie has been redirected since the lisbon referendum and in a rather cheeky manner that I can only guess was done by someone on the no campaign with a sense of humour.

oscarBravo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On a related but distant tangent it seems yestoeurope.ie has been redirected since the lisbon referendum and in a rather cheeky manner that I can only guess was done by someone on the no campaign with a sense of humour.

paul@vila:~$ whois yestoeurope.ie

% Rights restricted by copyright; http://iedr.ie/index.php/mnudomregs/mnudnssearch/96
% Do not remove this notice

domain: yestoeurope.ie
descr: Declan Ganley

Registered on February 9th, by the looks of it.

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

Registered on February 9th, by the looks of it.

But he didn't decide to support a No vote until last week, right?

BlitzKrieg

oscarBravo wrote: »

Registered on February 9th, by the looks of it.

Wow...I actually gave declan ganley a compliment.


I feel a tad dirty now

-Since randomname2 said it in the coir posters thread I get to say the same (with tongue firmly in cheek) CLEARLY DECLAN IS PUTTING UP OLD YES FOR JOBS POSTERS!!!!

C14N

meglome wrote: »

As far as I can tell nearly all of the no posters are misdirections or lies.

Or just irrelevant, don't forget that one.

leftleg wrote: »

So the yes campaign for jobs will absolutely definitely have the country overflowing with jobs

Nope, not really. But then there is no yes campaign for jobs as far as I'm aware. The Yes campaign is for "stability". It's hard to know for sure if it will work, but it probably will. Either way, it's not misinformation or lies.

leftleg wrote: »

we dont absolutely know so why put that poster up; ie both sides guilty of flagrant lies;

so in effect the yes camp have no scrupples either by all this reasoning.

leftleg wrote: »

"yes my poster is truer than yours"; again both sides guilty of the same thing so your point is irrelevant.

leftleg wrote: »

Look whether they do it now or not is irrelevant; the yes camp put up lies on there posters at some stage so they have as much scrupples as those "dastardly no campaigners"

This is the crux of the argument. You're wrong, the yes camp simply are not as bad. They haven't saturated the streets with nearly as many different posters, all of which depict different barefaced lies and entirely fictional apocalyptic scenarios designed to rile people into voting their way. As the OP showed, there are an unbelievable number of these around, one measly poster saying "yes for jobs" wouldn't tip the balance back even if it wasn't several years old and for a different treaty entirely.

leftleg wrote: »

Sorry I dont actually keep tabs on all the posters put up; I have better things to do than stalk referendum posters;

So really we would be wise to assume it doesn't exist. Also, stalking posters is quite easy, they make themselves very obvious and don't run away when you go up to them.

leftleg wrote: »

You creep about taking photos of the posters so you can post them on boards and make people think that the yes camp has in some way an angelic honest agenda going on and that they would never say anything untrue. What shower did you come down in...this is politics buddy not battleship.

Cool, personal attacks, those are great in a political discussion.

And just to re-iterate, nobody here has defended the Yes posters, much less praised them as "an angelic honest agenda". Simply that the pro-treaty propaganda pales in comparison to it's anti-treaty counterpart.

later12 wrote: »

I really don't think the average man on the 19A or the queue in Tesco is particularly preoccupied with these posters. Probably the wiser for it, too.

I'm sure they didn't directly think about it but I believe there is a serious amount of money stacked against you if you think advertising doesn't work. Particularly when it is as aggressive and omnipresent as this and is a primary source of information on the subject for many people.

They mightn't look at the poster and say "gee wiz, that austerity stuff sounds bad, I need to vote against it" but it's pretty easy to imagine plenty of people grumbling about how we need jobs, not austerity and those European banker elites are trying to take over our country and we don't want them damn foreigners telling us what to do because they see it all the time on No posters and believe it to be true.

oscarBravo

There's a SF poster on the outskirts of Castlebar, with a photograph of some footballers' legs and the caption "EURO 2012 - SUPPORT IRELAND - VOTE NO".

So I guess rejecting the treaty will help us win the footie.

C14N

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a SF poster on the outskirts of Castlebar, with a photograph of some footballers' legs and the caption "EURO 2012 - SUPPORT IRELAND - VOTE NO".

So I guess rejecting the treaty will help us win the footie.

Well it's about as likely as helping us avoid austerity :pac:

Paparazzo

meglome wrote: »

I stated out just to get the more outrageous ones but quickly realised they were mostly pretty outrageous.


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.

The top 2 points in that poster are pathetic. Their other poster must read:
No to pedophilia
No to legalised rape
No to the fiscal treaty

meglome

Paparazzo wrote: »

The top 2 points in that poster are pathetic. Their other poster must read:
No to pedophilia
No to legalised rape
No to the fiscal treaty

You know that's the point I've been making in this thread. The whole thing is a fiasco. Nobody should be able to say this stuff, government or opposition. What kind of system is it when anyone who has the funds can almost say anything. How can that ever lead to a good conclusion.

meglome

Republican Sinn Fein - Fight the powa.

Hotblack Desiato

At least the north-eastern corner is safe, thank feck for partition

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a SF poster on the outskirts of Castlebar, with a photograph of some footballers' legs and the caption "EURO 2012 - SUPPORT IRELAND - VOTE NO".

So I guess rejecting the treaty will help us win the footie.

That's my personal favourite tbh. Cracks me up every time I see it. And it is up a lot in certain areas. I drive by Corduff on my way to work and there's plenty of them there. Either thinking that people will be swayed by that is utterly stupid, or it's not and the people who are swayed by it are utterly stupid. Either way it's a bit of light relief on the way to work... :pac:

GarIT

If a few intelligent people got together they could easily put together a good argument against the treaty but they just seem not to be bothered and just throw up those ridiculous posters instead. Putting fiscal limits in place will help the EU but then on the reverse of that we are putting limits on Ireland's rights to decide it's own fiscal policies. If I had the time I would put together a campaign based around the freedom of Ireland and not the Euro 2012.

molloyjh

GarIT wrote: »

If a few intelligent people got together they could easily put together a good argument against the treaty but they just seem not to be bothered and just throw up those ridiculous posters instead. Putting fiscal limits in place will help the EU but then on the reverse of that we are putting limits on Ireland's rights to decide it's own fiscal policies. If I had the time I would put together a campaign based around the freedom of Ireland and not the Euro 2012.

But again that's a mis-representation of what's happening. Limits are being placed on our ability to run a deficit. Any sensible Government would place those limits on themselves anyway. The problem for both us (i.e. Ireland) and the EU has been that there have quite a few reckless Governments that haven't had any issue making a complete mess of their countries economy.

What you are advocating is like saying that a bank should give you an unlimited overdraft and not prevent you from spending money that you don't have. If you were to do that you'd not only be causing them problems, but you'd be shooting yourself in the foot as well.

We had economic "freedom", and look where it got us.

oscarBravo

GarIT wrote: »

...we are putting limits on Ireland's rights to decide it's own fiscal policies.

Well, yes. Which is a bit like putting limits on a person's right to burn down his house when he lives in a terrace. Our fiscal policies don't exist in isolation.

Scofflaw

Heh - apparently Guido Fawkes (of the faked "Anglo senior bondholders" list) is running a series of ads like this one:



and this one:



which redirect either to Libertas or Fine Gael. Any pretence of dealing with the subject matter of the Treaty is completely missing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And now, no doubt, I'll have to suffer a lot of rubbish about how the Treaty reaeeeelly does increase bond traders' bonuses.

Godge

ninja900 wrote: »

At least the north-eastern corner is safe, thank feck for partition

How do I nominate post of the day, made me laugh out loud.

GarIT

molloyjh wrote: »

But again that's a mis-representation of what's happening. Limits are being placed on our ability to run a deficit. Any sensible Government would place those limits on themselves anyway. The problem for both us (i.e. Ireland) and the EU has been that there have quite a few reckless Governments that haven't had any issue making a complete mess of their countries economy.

What you are advocating is like saying that a bank should give you an unlimited overdraft and not prevent you from spending money that you don't have. If you were to do that you'd not only be causing them problems, but you'd be shooting yourself in the foot as well.

We had economic "freedom", and look where it got us.

Not really. Europe regulating Ireland's fiscal policy (as well as the other member states) is exactly what's happening. It centainly needs to be done but I rather we get together a good financial team and do it ourselves. Ireland should be free of regulation by anyone other than ourselves.

molloyjh

GarIT wrote: »

No really. Europe regulating Ireland's fiscal policy (as well as the other member states) is exactly what's happening. It centainly needs to be done but I rather we get together a good financial team and do it ourselves. Ireland should be free of regulation by anyone other than ourselves.

Our fiscal policy is not being regulated. Our ability to go into deficit is. The two are not the same. If we stay on the right side of the standards applied we'll hear nothing from the EU and can carry on as normal.