Have the no campaign no scruples or standards?

ArmaniJeanss

molloyjh wrote: »

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:

Was wondering this morning whether UEFA and the FAI could sue Sinn Fein for using the name of the competition without license, and using player images without permission?

antoobrien

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Was wondering this morning whether UEFA and the FAI could sue Sinn Fein for using the name of the competition without license, and using player images without permission?

I'm sure we can contact the press officers in UEFA, the FAI & PFA (the player is probably a member) to see if they could play ball

The Waltzing Consumer

I thought a last minute court case was the end to the publicity stunts, but after Gerry Adams turned a dismissal into a victory I thought then it might be in.

Nope, a group of masked men and women protested in the Referendum Commission's premises in Dublin.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/masked-protestors-stage-treaty-demo-553541.html

I voted No before in Referendums regarding Europe, but I got to say, the standards of some No campaigners is close to thuggery now. There is no comparison when it came to standards in this referendum, and for the No campaign to acknowledge none of this is bewildering.

There are plenty of people and groups in the Yes groups that I would have zero time for and disagree profoundly with it, but they have acted and behaved exactly as I would have hoped for this. If they did not and had acted like majority of No side, I would have been as scathing at them as I am for the No camp.

The only comparison I can think of is Birthers in America, a racist violent ignorant undercurrent is present. For the Birthers, African Americans, arabs etc., for the No camp, Europe, Germany and anyone who disagrees with them.

GarIT

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

That is all part of it though. Ireland is a free state and if Ireland decided to go into debit nobody should be able to tell us otherwise. I'll admit this is one of the better treaties, on one hand it makes sense but on the other it gives Europe more power, probably only a tiny amount but its still more than previously. That's why I would much prefer if it was applied by our own people and not Europe. I'm about 40-60 on it I would vote yes if I didn't think Ireland should be trying to leave Europe. The treaty alone is probably a good thing for Ireland and I completely understand the yes side. All that said this is about the propaganda and its not the thread for discussing how to vote.

molloyjh

GarIT wrote: »

That is all part of it though. Ireland is a free state and if Ireland decided to go into debit nobody should be able to tell us otherwise. I'll admit this is one of the better treaties, on one hand it makes sense but on the other it gives Europe more power, probably only a tiny amount but its still more than previously. That's why I would much prefer if it was applied by our own people and not Europe.

The problem being we've demonstrated a complete inability to do so. Worse still we are not accepting the proper level of responsibility for our f-ups, which points to a dangerous lack of learning from ones own mistakes.

GarIT wrote: »

All that said this is about the propaganda and its not the thread for discussing how to vote.

Indeed...there's enough in that topic alone to keep us well busy/amused!

C14N

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The only comparison I can think of is Birthers in America, a racist violent ignorant undercurrent is present. For the Birthers, African Americans, arabs etc., for the No camp, Europe, Germany and anyone who disagrees with them.

I honestly thought it was just pretty similar to the Republican/Fox coalition. Thankfully, at least here dangerous levels of misinformation is limited to fringe groups like the Socialist Party and the United Left Alliance (kind of comically since they take the exact opposite stance of the aforementioned Republicans).

C14N

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm sure we can contact the press officers in UEFA, the FAI & PFA (the player is probably a member) to see if they could play ball

No sooner had I read your post than someone else posted this:

Party [Sinn Fein] facing wrath of UEFA over Euro 2012 treaty poster.

Quite amusing imo.

Hotblack Desiato

GarIT wrote: »

That is all part of it though. Ireland is a free state and if Ireland decided to go into debit nobody should be able to tell us otherwise.

And if we had our own currency we could do precisely that.* We voted to enter the single currency 20 years ago (Maastricht Treaty) and there were rules in there about how eurozone governments were supposed to behave to avoid destabilising the currency.
Problem was the rules were too weak, and the enforcement of them was non-existent.

it gives Europe more power, probably only a tiny amount but its still more than previously.

Arguably so tiny that we don't really need to be voting on this at all. I'd have been happy to have the government pass a Bill to implement this, and then ring up Michael D and suggest that he refer it to the Supreme Court. It's not at all certain that the Supreme Court would have rejected it as unconstitutional.
But, politically that probably wouldn't have played well as the No-to-everything types were already kicking up about being 'denied our referendum'... sigh..



* At the cost of perpetually much higher interest rates, and less foreign investment due to exchange risk. There is rarely any course of action for a government which doesn't have a downside...

Stabshauptmann

C14N wrote: »

Or just irrelevant, don't forget that one.
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.

The only honest thing that can be said about this vote is: This treaty consolidates rules on Government Debt, and Budget Deficits for eurozone countries into one treaty, and makes some of them "tighter". The stated aim is to stabilise the euro by preventing excessive debt and deficits.

Then people could debate whether those measures are reasonable and whether they will work. (In my opinion, no and possibly respectively).

molloyjh

Does anyone reckon ROG thinks that this Treaty is above international standard?

* - hoping people here get the joke....

meglome

molloyjh wrote: »

Does anyone reckon ROG thinks that this Treaty is above international standard?

* - hoping people here get the joke....

Okay fair enough I'm drunk but I don't get it.

the_syco

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

Any idea how much it costs to print out a poster? This would make a great "Vote No" poster

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.

They're already here. If the "No" vote wins, they'll be leaving quickly, though.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Joe Higgins doesn't do irony...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0601/fiscal-treaty-referendum-count-to-begin.html

Joe Higgins has said this has been one of the most shameful campaigns, with fear as a major tool of the Government.

C14N

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Joe Higgins doesn't do irony...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0601/fiscal-treaty-referendum-count-to-begin.html

I don't understand that man. He likes to act like he is one of the people and he has the working man's best interests at heart, yet he (or at least his party) deliberately misleads them and scares them with this litter so he can get what he wants.

Does he not think the No case is strong enough that the working class will vote for it based on truth or does he simply not trust them to agree with him on everything?

PopeBuckfastXVI

C14N wrote: »

I don't understand that man. He likes to act like he is one of the people and he has the working man's best interests at heart, yet he (or at least his party) deliberately misleads them and scares them with this litter so he can get what he wants.

Does he not think the No case is strong enough that the working class will vote for it based on truth or does he simply not trust them to agree with him on everything?

Actually, I don't believe he has any respect for their intelligence or ability to discern the truth or complexity of a matter, hence the big scary poster campaign, and the lies and half truths.

evercloserunion

The Jaws one was one of the most hilariously bad posters of the campaign.

meglome

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Joe Higgins doesn't do irony...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0601/fiscal-treaty-referendum-count-to-begin.html

I really truly don't get this. The no campaign generally seem to have no issue with lying or misdirection if the no campaign is doing it. Actually they don't even seem to see it.

We all should be against all of the lying and misdirection, doesn't matter who is doing it.

evercloserunion wrote: »

The Jaws one was one of the most hilariously bad posters of the campaign.

It's a great poster as such, ignoring the lying on it obviously.

meglome

Meant to say at the time but I had gone through Cabra in Dublin and there were even more posters of the same vein as I posted in my OP. Some had the local Sinn Feins guys mug on them.

Without doubt this is the worst of all the referendum campaigns poster wise, by just pure volume alone.

Does anyone think the system can be changed for the next referendum?

Ban posters entirely.... Fact checking... limits on where/how much external funding parties can get.

Richard tea

meglome wrote: »

Meant to say at the time but I had gone through Cabra in Dublin and there were even more posters of the same vein as I posted in my OP. Some had the local Sinn Feins guys mug on them.

Without doubt this is the worst of all the referendum campaigns poster wise, by just pure volume alone.

Does anyone think the system can be changed for the next referendum?

Ban posters entirely.... Fact checking... limits on where/how much external funding parties can get.

I would welcome the banning of posters. Fact checking would kill both sides of a campaign, lets be honest about it. Funding wise, im not sureif I would change this process.

GarIT

meglome wrote: »

Ban posters entirely.... Fact checking... limits on where/how much external funding parties can get.

Posters can be very informative so I wouldn't ban them. There should be jail time for posting lies on a political poster. If someone wants to put money into something they believe in they have a right to do so, I think limiting funding would be immoral but where or who the funding can come from is certainly something I would question in some campaigns.

meglome

Richard tea wrote: »

I would welcome the banning of posters. Fact checking would kill both sides of a campaign, lets be honest about it. Funding wise, im not sureif I would change this process.

Well fact checking would be worse generally for the no campaign. The government tend to go with aspirational slogans which although nonsense in many ways are not downright lies. The no posters tend to have provable lies on them.

Funding wise I was talking about parties getting funding externally in relationship to their support locally. We have a situation where parties here with sometimes marginal support are able to fund thousands of posters. I'm very doubtful they are funding much of those locally.

GarIT wrote: »

Posters can be very informative so I wouldn't ban them. There should be jail time for posting lies on a political poster. If someone wants to put money into something they believe in they have a right to do so, I think limiting funding would be immoral but where or who the funding can come from is certainly something I would question in some campaigns.

Sure posters can be informative, just not sure when I actually saw the last informative one. As I said above I'm not talking about limiting funding as such, just limiting funding from external sources and having strict rules about it generally. Why should it be okay for any organisation from anywhere to fund a campaign here or involve themselves directly in our referenda.

I couldn't believe that some people were applauding the UK Independence party for getting involved (again). Anyone who thinks the UKIP guys have our interests at heart need their head looked at.

C14N

GarIT wrote: »

Posters can be very informative so I wouldn't ban them.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice they never have been and I don't see that changing for the better.

GarIT wrote: »

There should be jail time for posting lies on a political poster.

With political posters it's hard to prove lies. Would a court of law call "Stability" an actual lie? Or what about stuff like Ganley's ball on a chain poster? The message is clear and scary, but is it legally a lie?

Most political discussion revolves around predictions and interpretations. They can be crazy without actually being lies.

GarIT wrote: »

If someone wants to put money into something they believe in they have a right to do so, I think limiting funding would be immoral but where or who the funding can come from is certainly something I would question in some campaigns.

I don't think it's immoral at all. What I do think is immoral is that someone should have a better chance (often significantly better) at doing well in an election based on their previous financial situation or the financial situation of their associates. If money didn't play such a vital role in political campaigns, it might be easier for people to actually get into the world of politics.

GarIT

C14N wrote: »

Sounds good in theory, but in practice they never have been and I don't see that changing for the better.



With political posters it's hard to prove lies. Would a court of law call "Stability" an actual lie? Or what about stuff like Ganley's ball on a chain poster? The message is clear and scary, but is it legally a lie?

Most political discussion revolves around predictions and interpretations. They can be crazy without actually being lies.



I don't think it's immoral at all. What I do think is immoral is that someone should have a better chance (often significantly better) at doing well in an election based on their previous financial situation or the financial situation of their associates. If money didn't play such a vital role in political campaigns, it might be easier for people to actually get into the world of politics.

There have been some, I think in general they need more writing and less pictures.

I know for most it is hard to say its a false statment but there should be punishments for the ones that are definately wrong.

If that was possible it would be fairer but I don't think it is. What would you do, put a max spending cap on it? Some people still wont meet the cap and will be disadvantaged, if you make it a set ammount who will make up the difference for the people that don't make it? Then if there were any spending limits groups could just pretend to be split into smaller ones to double what they could spend.

C14N

GarIT wrote: »

If that was possible it would be fairer but I don't think it is. What would you do, put a max spending cap on it? Some people still wont meet the cap and will be disadvantaged, if you make it a set ammount who will make up the difference for the people that don't make it? Then if there were any spending limits groups could just pretend to be split into smaller ones to double what they could spend.

I don't know entirely what could be done. At least if there is a spending cap, one person can only go so far ahead of one with less funding. Alternatively, have no posters or ads at all. Just give them some sort of soapbox (whether on TV, radio, internet etc) to say why they think the way they do and let the public decide. No money spent on a campaign at all. This is entirely hypothetical though because there is no chance of it actually happening in the foreseeable future.