yes to jobs...

brianthebard

Is already being proven as the lie it always was. http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/10/aer-lingus-after-lisbon-the-job-massacre-continues/

Aer Lingus are to cut 700 jobs after pushing for a yes vote. They delayed this information to prevent it impacting the referendum. What SIPTU was doing supporting the treaty I don't know.

Max Power1

BUt dont you see, the government gets whatever result it wants by whatever means necessary!


The above sign is just a tool to generate pro lisbon votes

Rb

Fair play to them.

P. Breathnach

brianthebard wrote: »

... They delayed this information to prevent it impacting the referendum...

A claim as serious as this needs some backing. A Joe Higgins assertion is not sufficient.

brianthebard

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A claim as serious as this needs some backing. A Joe Higgins assertion is not sufficient.

Do you think he had no idea before Friday that 700 people were going to be culled from his company and that he was going to implement a new policy of cutting pay and benefits? That's clearly the sort of thing you just decide on a whim right?

Red Sleeping Beauty

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A claim as serious as this needs some backing. A Joe Higgins assertion is not sufficient.

But a Brian Cowen one is ?

On this "yes to jobs" thing, it's going to be a great irony (or maybe tragedy) when unemployment soars, when social welfare is cut and when min wage is cut. There'll be the usual wishy washy excuse from predictable quarters with enough obfuscation to quell any tension.

meglome

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you think he had no idea before Friday that 700 people were going to be culled from his company and that he was going to implement a new policy of cutting pay and benefits? That's clearly the sort of thing you just decide on a whim right?

I think that Aer Lingus were and are losing quite a lot of money. I think that anyone who thought there wasn't going to be job losses was very naive indeed. In case anyone wasn't aware the raison d'être of businesses is to make money, if they don't they will eventually close down. I think that after all the lies the socialists and Joe Higgins told in the Lisbon campaign I wouldn't believe a word they say.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

But a Brian Cowen one is ?

What claim did Brian Cowan make?

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

BUt dont you see, the government gets whatever result it wants by whatever means necessary!


The above sign is just a tool to generate pro lisbon votes

Government makes vague statement. Some voters decide to believe it means recession will be over and jobs for everyone (mostly No voters for some reason). Silly voters, a vague statement is just a vague statement of what could or might happen.

Max Power1

not vague.

Yes to jobs is as clear as it gets

whatisayis

meglome wrote: »

Government makes vague statement. Some voters decide to believe it means recession will be over and jobs for everyone (mostly No voters for some reason). Silly voters, a vague statement is just a vague statement of what could or might happen.

Sorry but the government made a strong statement. Vote yes for jobs, vote yes for the economy. Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

not vague.

Yes to jobs is as clear as it gets

Well you must be reading between the lines there because 'Yes to job' appears to me to be very vague and lacking any specifics. Thankfully I voted on the treaty for reasons that are all contained within the treaty.

Scofflaw

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

Max Power1

meglome wrote: »

Well you must be reading between the lines there because 'Yes to job' appears to me to be very vague and lacking any specifics. Thankfully I voted on the treaty for reasons that are all contained within the treaty.

Its pretty straightforward tbh. Yes (affirmative) to(preposition) Jobs (noun). Yes to jobs. Am I missing something where that isnt clearly stating something. How can that be vague

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

I dont think it would immediately prevent job losses or lead to jobs. But the slogan as mentioned, Yes To Jobs, if taken literally, would seem to indicate that jobs were promised for a yes vote. Maybe not immendiately though.

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

I doubt it too. It's a reasonable point to bring up regarding the veracity of the slogans in the Lisbon campaign, no matter how vague these slogans really were. What I don't understand is why they keep bringing up the same point over and over as if slogans without any specifics whatsoever will somehow get more specific.

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its pretty straightforward tbh. Yes (affirmative) to(preposition) Jobs (noun). Yes to jobs. Am I missing something where that isnt clearly stating something. How can that be vague

I'm not saying there will be no jobs. I'm saying a stupid slogan on a poster or the like is just a slogan, it has zero specifics. Now I believe the Yes vote will lead to jobs, the cost of our borrowing has fallen plus it has helped the stock market.

Max Power1 wrote: »

I dont think it would immediately prevent job losses or lead to jobs. But the slogan as mentioned, Yes To Jobs, if taken literally, would seem to indicate that jobs were promised for a yes vote. Maybe not immendiately though.

So what's your point then?

View

brianthebard wrote: »

Is already being proven as the lie it always was. http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/10/aer-lingus-after-lisbon-the-job-massacre-continues/

Aer Lingus are to cut 700 jobs after pushing for a yes vote. They delayed this information to prevent it impacting the referendum. What SIPTU was doing supporting the treaty I don't know.

Given the size of the majority in the referendum, whether Aer Lingus made this announcement before or after ther referendum would have made little difference to the result.

Face it - the No side wasn't defeated, it was humiliated.

kryogen

meglome wrote: »

I doubt it too. It's a reasonable point to bring up regrading the veracity of the slogans in the Lisbon campaign, no matter how vague these slogans really were. What I don't understand is why they keep brining up the same point over and over as if the slogans will get any less vague.

now look, i understand your point, i really do, i didnt vote based on slogans! but if you are unable to even admit to the simple fact that the government and other parties on the yes side made deliberate decisions to influence people in terms of their yes to jobs slogans then you are either very deluded, or simply from another planet

the signs were honestly not vague, of course they are not legally binding or anything, but they are certainly not vague, they implied a yes vote would create jobs.....there is no way around that, and of course they may create jobs in the next few months! but dont try say the signs were vague, it is hard to be vague with a sign that said YES TO JOBS!

K-9

So a No to Lisbon would have stopped this?

Joe Higgins, SF et al said a Yes to Lisbon would lead to job losses.

How would a No stop the job losses?

Max Power1

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying there will be no jobs. I'm saying a stupid slogan on a poster or the like is just a slogan, it has zero specifics. Now I believe the Yes vote will lead to jobs, the cost of our borrowing has fallen plus it has helped the stock market.



So what's your point then?

My point was that it is straightforward what "yes to jobs" means.

K-9

PS. Lisbon hasn't come into effect yet.

Maybe wait a year lads.

You do realise this same arguments means a No doubled unemployment?

whatisayis

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying there will be no jobs. I'm saying a stupid slogan on a poster or the like is just a slogan, it has zero specifics. Now I believe the Yes vote will lead to jobs, the cost of our borrowing has fallen plus it has helped the stock market.



So what's your point then?

The cost of our borrowing has been falling since July. Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

So a No to Lisbon would have stopped this?

no

Joe Higgins, SF et al said a Yes to Lisbon would lead to job losses.

How would a No stop the job losses?


neither decision could prevent job losses, untill we turn the corner this naturally going to happen!

.

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

.

But we voted No, Unemployment more than doubled?

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

But we voted No, Unemployment more than doubled?

sorry now but im tired and am gonna need a clarification here?

actually if you mean that we voted no the last time and this happened after it i think you might find that the two things have nothing to do with each other....economy collapsing sort of aided the rising unemployment, not a no vote

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

sorry now but im tired and am gonna need a clarification here?

actually if you mean that we voted no the last time and this happened after it i think you might find that the two things have nothing to do with each other....economy collapsing sort of aided the rising unemployment, not a no vote

YEP. Nail on head time. :eek:

I love the ironing though.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

YEP. Nail on head time. :eek:

I love the ironing though.

oh i see, you are trying to be clever........very good. unfortunaly there is not much ironing here, wrong choice of phrase my friend

brianthebard

K-9 wrote: »

YEP. Nail on head time. :eek:

I love the ironing though.

I don't remember the No campaign being run mainly on the grounds that a No vote would end unemployment, but the Yes campaign this time round was explicitly run with the messages yes to jobs and yes to recovery. However the Lisbon treaty could not deliver these things.
What I find funny is that the referendum is over yet Yes campaigners here cannot let the mask slip for even a second and admit that the yes vote was won on fear and scaremongering, or that most of the yes campaign was pretty poor lcd stuff.

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't remember the No campaign being run mainly on the grounds that a No vote would end unemployment, but the Yes campaign this time round was explicitly run with the messages yes to jobs and yes to recovery. However the Lisbon treaty could not deliver these things.
What I find funny is that the referendum is over yet Yes campaigners here cannot let the mask slip for even a second and admit that the yes vote was won on fear and scaremongering, or that most of the yes campaign was pretty poor lcd stuff.

Well, I started a whole new thread on this, as it deserves it.

I do remember Higgins et al saying it would lead to job losses.

Keith186

View wrote: »

Given the size of the majority in the referendum, whether Aer Lingus made this announcement before or after ther referendum would have made little difference to the result.

Face it - the No side wasn't defeated, it was humiliated.

Given the size of the majority 14 months ago, i.e. a majority in Lisbon I, there wasn't really the need for a second referendum after the first one.

In fairness you would have to admit the 'Yes' side should be more humiliated and if it wasn't for 'the recession' which kicked off after the 'No' side legitimately prospered we would have had a tighter result possibly in either favour but most likely a 'No' again. Grow up and open your eyes and don't be one of the sheep who is easily swayed to yes or no and look at the big picture.

In reality the 'Yes' side should count themselves lucky that a lot of people or people they know lost their jobs but they all seem to be talking like politicians now.

Inevitably there will be job creation down the line following either outcome of the referendum so a 'No for Jobs' slogan is equally as valid a slogan as the 'Yes to Jobs' one.

Both are nonsense.

View

brianthebard wrote: »

What I find funny is that the referendum is over yet No campaigners here cannot let the mask slip for even a second and admit that the no vote was won on fear and scaremongering, or that most of the no campaign was pretty poor lcd stuff.

I corrected that for you. Let's face it, there was hardly a no campaigner that even made the pretence of trying to be truthful.

It might explain why the electorate humiliated them at the end of the day.

K-9

No wonder FF are in power!

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

I do remember Higgins et al saying it would lead to job losses.

2000+ job losses since Monday this week. Including 300 from "Vote yes for jobs" Intel corp.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

2000+ job losses since Monday this week. Including 300 from "Vote yes for jobs" Intel corp.

And what exactly was the vote on?

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

And what exactly was the vote on?

the vote was on a treaty

did you see any signs directly related to the treaty on either side of the campaign?

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

And what exactly was the vote on?

The vote was on the amendment to our constitution.

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

the vote was on a treaty

did you see any signs directly related to the treaty on either side of the campaign?

Blame the Poles and the Czechs then, seeing as it hasn't been passed. Seems to be a common No side tactic.

View

Keith186 wrote: »

Given the size of the majority 14 months ago, i.e. a majority in Lisbon I, there wasn't really the need for a second referendum after the first one.

A majority of 3 in 100 voters acheived after an unprecedented spend by the No campaigners accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of mis-quotations and outright lies. It was clear from the post-referenda analysis that few No voters were actually voting on Lisbon itself, rather they were voting based on the deluded fantasies of COIR and Libertas.

Keith186 wrote: »

In fairness you would have to admit the 'Yes' side should be more humiliated and if it wasn't for 'the recession' which kicked off after the 'No' side legitimately prospered we would have had a tighter result possibly in either favour but most likely a 'No' again.

Once the EU leaders gave guarentees to the effect that the No sides lies had no basis in reality, the game was effectively up for the No campaign. As it happens, the result clearly shows the electorate was prepared to hold their noses and vote to be on the same side as the highly unpopular Government politicans, rather than line up with the No's nonsense again.

brianthebard

View wrote: »

I corrected that for you.

Please don't do that, its not funny or clever.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

Blame the Poles and the Czechs then, seeing as it hasn't been passed. Seems to be a common No side tactic.

so that was no then to the direct question you were asked?

im not even gonna get into the absudity of what you tried to deflect not having an answer with

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

Blame the Poles and the Czechs then, seeing as it hasn't been passed. Seems to be a common No side tactic.

Interesting. Can you link me to any yes side website that mentions the Irish constitution?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

not vague.

Yes to jobs is as clear as it gets

Let's put it this way: anyone who voted yes because they thought it would prevent these job losses is retarded and anyone who thought that the government was saying that a yes vote would prevent these job losses is equally retarded

kryogen

View wrote: »

A majority of 3 in 100 voters acheived after an unprecedented spend by the No campaigners accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of mis-quotations and outright lies. It was clear from the post-referenda analysis that few No voters were actually voting on Lisbon itself, rather they were voting based on the deluded fantasies of COIR and Libertas.

So to your reasoning then you reckn the irish people are idiots who dont know what way to vote unless they are led by the hand, and are unable of looking beyond campaign talk to decide something for themselves.......yet you are sure they knew what they were doing this time? contradictory tbh

and considering the amount the yes side spent on the campaign this time its foolish to introduce that into the debate

Once the EU leaders gave guarentees to the effect that the No sides lies had no basis in reality, the game was effectively up for the No campaign. As it happens, the result clearly shows the electorate was prepared to hold their noses and vote to be on the same side as the highly unpopular Government politicans, rather than line up with the No's nonsense again.

the no campaign was ran absolutely terribly and helped the yes side no end. this is obvious, some of them were actually the best weapon the yes campaigners had going for them!

.

View

brianthebard wrote: »

Please don't do that, its not funny or clever.

No, but it is true. To my mind, most of the No campaigners realised they wouldn't persuade the electorate to vote No if they tried arguing based on the treaty itself, so they opted instead to substitute fantasies and lies for good arguments.

And as can be seen, once the electorate cop on to that strategy, it ultimately backfires.

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

the vote was on a treaty

did you see any signs directly related to the treaty on either side of the campaign?

Neither. The No side had some on what they thought was in the Treaty, last time and this time. SF, Libertas and Coir.

The Yes Campaign posters were a joke last time, universally agreed.

Look, they are posters!

whatisayis wrote: »

Interesting. Can you link me to any yes side website that mentions the Irish constitution?

Why would they? I know it was a big deal with No groups, but not with Yes Groups. No Groups regarded Lisbon as an attack on the Constitution. Yes Groups and parties seen it was largely irrelevant compared to previous Referenda.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let's put it this way: anyone who voted yes because they thought it would prevent these job losses is retarded and anyone who thought that the government was saying that a yes vote would prevent these job losses is equally retarded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

Neither. The No side had some on what they thought was in the Treaty, last time and this time. SF, Libertas and Coir.

The Yes Campaign posters were a joke last time, universally agreed.

Exatly, my point is that neither side debated the merits of the treaty or tried to really give the public information on the thing they were actually voting on!

it was like a bloody US presidential election, all catch phrases and bull**** slogans

no substance

whatisayis

K-9 wrote: »

Why would they? I know it was a big deal with No groups, but not with Yes Groups. No Groups regarded Lisbon as an attack on the Constitution. Yes Groups and parties seen it was largely irrelevant compared to previous Referenda.

Maybe they should have had read the Lisbon Treaty?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

My point was that it is straightforward what "yes to jobs" means.

Well clearly it's not because you have taken an extremely literal and strict interpretation that only a retarded person would actually believe would happen if they voted yes.

Since you have taken an interpretation that only a retarded person would believe, would you not consider that maybe it wasn't meant in the way you're saying?

K-9

kryogen wrote: »

Exatly, my point is that neither side debated the merits of the treaty or tried to really give the public information on the thing they were actually voting on!

it was like a bloody US presidential election, all catch phrases and bull**** slogans

no substance

I don't think you'll find much disagreement on this.

What happened was, as you admit, the No side campaigned and won on nothing based on the Treaty.

The Yes side reacted. O'Leary negated Ganley. Most people hate O'Leary but most aren't members of Unions. Mostly Public Sector workers are.

Really, your problem seems to be with our Referenda laws, which remember, achieved a No and Yes.

The underlying problem isn't which way you vote, it's the system.

View

kryogen wrote: »

So to your reasoning then you reckn the irish people are idiots who dont know what way to vote unless they are led by the hand, and are unable of looking beyond campaign talk to decide something for themselves

No, I don't reckon the people are idiots. Read the post-referenda analysis from Lisbon I. It speaks for itself. Few No voters were hardline No voters, most were responding to the campaign of lies and half-truths from the likes of COIR, Libertas etc.

You don't think, it is a concidence that the same fantasies about neutrality, abortion etc. are re-used in each referenda campaign by the No side, do you? Even when it was clear they were wrong in the previous 6 referenda?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Maybe they should have had read the Lisbon Treaty?

Yep, that was the difference. Come on!