Are the No side conceding defeat?

imeddyhobbs

bkelly86 wrote: »

This is gonna make Irish people look so stupid first nice we say no then yes and now Lisbon again.

Good point,we will be known as push overs take a look here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055698609

prinz

bkelly86 wrote: »

This is gonna make Irish people look so stupid first nice we say no then yes and now Lisbon again.

No we looked stupid when the government went back to Europe and said 'right lads we know this has nothing whatsoever to do with what's in the Treaty but could yez just make us guarantees about abortion, neutrality.... etc etc'. That made us look stupid.

bkelly86

like i just dont understand why people would vote no once and yes the second on the exact same treaty. it makes the the irish people look like such pushovers.

prinz

bkelly86 wrote: »

like i just dont understand why people would vote no once and yes the second on the exact same treaty. it makes the the irish people look like such pushovers.

Probably because a lot of the arguments used to get people to vote no were complete and utter nonsense, and not enough people the last time around took the time to check for themselves.

PaulieD

prinz wrote: »

Probably because a lot of the arguments used to get people to vote no were complete and utter nonsense, and not enough people the last time around took the time to check for themselves.

Probably because they were scared to death by threats of consequences and believed in lies such as vote Yes for jobs.

utick

prinz wrote: »

Probably because a lot of the arguments used to get people to vote no were complete and utter nonsense, and not enough people the last time around took the time to check for themselves.

its nothing to do with that and everything to dowith the economy.

prinz

utick wrote: »

its nothing to do with that and everything to dowith the economy.

Sorry, but there are a number of posters right here on boards that voted no the first time and yes the second. The 'yes for jobs' etc was not a reason given by any of them for changing.

Fuhrer

ascanbe wrote: »

It will be a Yes, however, due to the populace being scared stiff over the consequences of voting No;

Either that or they took a look at what they were voting for and decieded, hmmm, this seems worthwhile. I think Ill aprove it.


But hey, why say the other side was right when you can stupidly shout at them and scream epitaphs. Heaven forbid that you could be wrong or even more likely, completly misinformed and too stupid to comprehend that.

Mr Benevolent

I suspect it's going to be a No. Most of my friends and family have changed their minds to No over the past 3 weeks for some reason. The Boards poll says No as well. I would've voted Yes if I was in Ireland for the vote.

Scofflaw

Fuhrer wrote: »

Either that or they took a look at what they were voting for and decieded, hmmm, this seems worthwhile. I think Ill aprove it.


But hey, why say the other side was right when you can stupidly shout at them and scream epitaphs. Heaven forbid that you could be wrong or even more likely, completly misinformed and too stupid to comprehend that.

Be polite, please...er, also, it's more usually "epithets", although I do like the idea of screaming 'epitaphs' at people - the more so because certain No-side groups (such as Libertas) were doing exactly that.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw, Libertas played minor role in the public debates/discussions this time compared to last time. They entered the campaigning a bit late I thought. It's doubtful if they'll (or Ganley) have had an impact.

I think everyone's accorded them/him with a bit too much status tbh.

imeddyhobbs

The yes side have it,politicians are liars.When FG are in power they will be looking at demonstrations by people who will be waving Lisbon posters that state yes for jobs and yes for recovery,the dunces that run the country will disown all notions that there will be new employment from the Lisbon treaty

PaulieD

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

The yes side have it,politicians are liars.When FG are in power they will be looking at demonstrations by people who will be waving Lisbon posters that state yes for jobs and yes for recovery,the dunces that run the country will disown all notions that there will be new employment from the Lisbon treaty

We are stuck with Brian Cowens Fianna Fail and the Greens until 2012, if it is a Yes vote. Make sure to get yourself one of them "Yes for jobs" posters. They may be handy in the near future.

Ever see the list of lies from Nice?

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Scofflaw, Libertas played minor role in the public debates/discussions this time compared to last time. They entered the campaigning a bit late I thought. It's doubtful if they'll (or Ganley) have had an impact.

I think everyone's accorded them/him with a bit too much status tbh.

While that's irrelevant to the comment I was making, I don't agree. Until Ganley entered the debate, the media focus was on COIR, and the No side were really losing very badly. Once Ganley entered, the media attention switched to him, COIR retreated somewhat into the shadows, and simultaneously - whether coincidentally or not, the No side appeared to become a good deal more focused, coherent, and driven. The No campaigns also switched from the various weird and disparate bogeymen they'd been trying to conjure up to a coherent pair of messages - summed up in the Libertas poster featuring Brian Cowen. The level of online engagement also increased quite noticeably.

I also don't think Ganley's re-entry was of his own volition - I'm pretty certain he was persuaded to get involved, despite his earlier statement of retirement, for exactly those reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

While that's irrelevant to the comment I was making, I don't agree. Until Ganley entered the debate, the media focus was on COIR, and the No side were really losing very badly. Once Ganley entered, the media attention switched to him, COIR retreated somewhat into the shadows, and simultaneously - whether coincidentally or not, the No side appeared to become a good deal more focused, coherent, and driven. The No campaigns also switched from the various weird and disparate bogeymen they'd been trying to conjure up to a coherent pair of messages - summed up in the Libertas poster featuring Brian Cowen. The level of online engagement also increased quite noticeably.

I also don't think Ganley's re-entry was of his own volition - I'm pretty certain he was persuaded to get involved, despite his earlier statement of retirement, for exactly those reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing wrong with a coherent "no" campaign though is there ? It'll be interesting to see who if anyone will be conceding defeat for the "no side".

On Ganley's re-entry into this thing, I don't know what you're suggesting by him being persuaded. I'm quite curious by what you're getting at though.


Btw, as many of us know, political statements don't really hold that much weight do they?
Ganley said he wouldn't be involved, Cowen said he respected the will of the people and Gilmore said Lisbon was dead.

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a coherent "no" campaign though is there ? It'll be interesting to see who if anyone will be conceding defeat for the "no side".

On Ganley's re-entry into this thing, I don't know what you're suggesting by him being persuaded. I'm quite curious by what you're getting at though.


Btw, as many of us know, political statements don't really hold that much weight do they?
Ganley said he wouldn't be involved, Cowen said he respected the will of the people and Gilmore said Lisbon was dead.

Indeed they don't, because political imperatives and pressures tend to require their retraction - the difference, in Ganley's case, is that he's not a politician.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

Can I ask why you think Ganley reluctantly re-entered the Lisbon debate(s) ?
The Libertas posters and slogans and stuff definitely only came out towards the end (if you include when the first few campaigns started).

I hated seeing Gangley around. I resented that he was getting airtime over others (his bitchfest with O'Leary got about 15mins over Higgins and Cox's few mins on PrimeTime) and that he diverted any discussion or debate. As with before, when Ganley was introudced, there was ample questions about his motives and financing. Bit of a sham really for both "sides" having this guy involved. Can't see him conceding defeat as being relevant anyway.

tattoodublin

:eek: ...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X


That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous
_Joseph Goebbels

Sam Vimes

PaulieD wrote: »

It does look ominous for the No side. This whole campaign was a farce. It was all based on fear. Fear of conscription, fear of abortion, fear of unemployment, fear of poverty, fear of exclusion from the EU, fear of p*ssing off Brussels, the list is endless. One thing is clear in all this, neither side has covered themselves in glory.

And yet people on the no side want to see this farce spread all over Europe

They all knew better

Sam Vimes

bkelly86 wrote: »

This is gonna make Irish people look so stupid first nice we say no then yes and now Lisbon again.

Yes it is. Maybe we should stop listening to extremists and vote on the facts the first time instead of the scary fantasies

Sam Vimes

Just listening to Newstalk interviewing people just after voting. They only had one no voter and she said that she doesn't want increased militarisation and is worried about neutrality. When asked about the guarantees she says "they're not legally binding"

Well done Sinn Fein, your lies convinced at least one

Boskowski

utick wrote: »

its nothing to do with that and everything to do with the economy.

Unfortunately I believe this is true.

I reckon I lot of people would have fallen for the "<- Ruins - Recovery ->" trick. The bubble meltdown couldn't have come at a better time for the pro-Lisbon agendas.

And while I grant a lot of the Lisbon supporters that they were genuine enough, if it turns out to be a 'Yes' they will have won it for all the wrong reasons.

Pretty much what the 'No' side was accused of all along.

But hey, that's politics for you these days. It's all about hidden agendas and manipulation and very little about facts and whats best for the people.

Edit: On second thoughts..., scratch 'these days', probably been about that since forever...

Boskowski

PaulieD wrote: »

It does look ominous for the No side. This whole campaign was a farce. It was all based on fear. Fear of conscription, fear of abortion, fear of unemployment, fear of poverty, fear of exclusion from the EU, fear of p*ssing off Brussels, the list is endless. One thing is clear in all this, neither side has covered themselves in glory.

Agreed. If they 'yes' side wins it, it will be all about how we're going to tatters economically had we voted 'No' again. About as farcical as a lot of the 'No' arguments.

Sam Vimes

I think it's funny how people on the no side talk about the last referendum in terms of democratic will of the people and "NO MEANS NO" and how our vote should be respected but now that it looks like there might be a yes vote the reasons people voted suddenly become relevant. Now you say how people were scared into voting yes, how it's farcical, how it's trickery, how they're winning it for the wrong reasons and how its all about hidden agendas and not what's best for the people

But when I said exactly that about the last referendum, when I pointed out that the people were scared by lies into voting no and would not have voted no had they not been lied to, none of that matters and giving them a chance to educate themselves, realise that their fears are unfounded and change their minds is a shameful assault on the democratic will of the people

And "yes to recovery" isn't even a lie. You can keep saying it is all you want but all of the experts disagree with you, everyone who knows anything about business and the economy thinks it will help recovery and I'm going to go with them. Note that no one ever said that "recovery starts Monday", that it would solve all our problems or that a no vote would result in massive job losses, those are all overly simplistic interpretations to make a reasonable sentence look ridiculous. A yes vote creates confidence which helps and a no vote creates uncertainty which doesn't, simple as that

thebman

I think it'll be more interesting to see how many of the no voters on here continue posting from their low post counts.

I'm betting the number will be low.

Boskowski

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And "yes to recovery" isn't even a lie. You can keep saying it is all you want but all of the experts disagree with you, everyone who knows anything about business and the economy thinks it will help recovery and I'm going to go with them. Note that no one ever said that "recovery starts Monday", that it would solve all our problems or that a no vote would result in massive job losses, those are all overly simplistic interpretations to make a reasonable sentence look ridiculous. A yes vote creates confidence which helps and a no vote creates uncertainty which doesn't, simple as that

Is that the same experts who told us in 2007 and 2008 to keep buying houses?

Edit: Sorry for snapping back like that. What I'm saying is that these so-called 'experts' know sh1t. 'Recovery' on the back of Lisbon is at best a very, very, very optimistic assumption. But at the heart of it its basically a lie, because the people using this argument know it and they knowingly use it because they know the country is scared sh1t about the economy. It's what you call manipulation.

Sam Vimes

realcam wrote: »

Is that the same experts who told us in 2007 and 2008 to keep buying houses?

Some of them are, most of them aren't. I don't think Intel builds houses for instance. And yes, experts can be wrong but that's very different to lying

And unless you're arguing we should sack every top businessman and economist in the world because years of experience clearly means absolutely nothing because some Irish developers didn't predict the US sub prime mortgage lending crisis and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, I don't really know where you're going with this.......

Sam Vimes

realcam wrote: »

'Recovery' on the back of Lisbon is at best a very, very, very optimistic assumption. But at the heart of it its basically a lie, because the people using this argument know it and they knowingly use it because they know the country is scared sh1t about the economy. It's what you call manipulation.

But if it's an optimistic assumption then it's not a lie. It might be manipulation and they might not be winning it on the merits of the treaty but it's not a lie, it's an optimistic assumption that everyone who knows anything about the economy agrees with. Those people might be wrong but since the only people who disagree with them are people who have some other reason for not wanting Lisbon passed, I think that anyone looking at the situation objectively can see their point and only biased observers call them liars who know nothing

Boskowski

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Some of them are, most of them aren't. I don't think Intel builds houses for instance. And yes, experts can be wrong but that's very different to lying

And unless you're arguing we should sack every top businessman and economist in the world because years of experience clearly means absolutely nothing because some Irish developers didn't predict the US sub prime mortgage lending crisis and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, I don't really know where you're going with this.......

Lol, here we go again...
What does the criminal conduct in Irish politics, business & banking and complete abandoning of risk mitigation practices have to do with Lehmann? I mean our banks don't need a bailout because they're sitting on billions of dodgy US investment papers. They need one because they are effin greedy criminals and the problem is entirely homegrown.

Jesus you really have the FF party line down to a fine art.

Boskowski

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But if it's an optimistic assumption then it's not a lie. It might be manipulation and they might not be winning it on the merits of the treaty but it's not a lie

Well, we're splitting hairs now aren't we?