Libertas posters have sprung up

gurramok

In the last 24hours or so, I've noticed Libertas posters have sprung up over North Dublin(Blanchardstown, Finglas, Ballymun, Santry) and even in the not so populated areas. The posters are quite numerous and not just on the odd telegraph pole. I'd have to assume its similar in other areas near the city centre and beyond?

Anyway, I'm curious how a tiny political group could muster the funds for such a poster campaign on the scale of a large political party?

Fenian Army

Posters are approx a fiver a pop fwiw

Think_then_talk

The entrepreneur Declan Ganley might have something to do with it and some swiss-based bank :eek:

gurramok

Their logo was something like "No to the Bank Debt" with a white background. Its just their numbers that struck me, more posters than any other party on the drive through those areas mentioned.

Fenian Army

No reduction on bank debt, No deal.

Lots in Drogheda too.

meglome

Fenian Army wrote: »

No reduction on bank debt, No deal.

Lots in Drogheda too.

I may be a Yes voter but honestly my anger at these posters has nothing to do with the fact they are for a no... they are plain and simply bullshít. And promoted by a man who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him. AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.

chris2008x

meglome wrote: »

I may be a Yes voter but honestly my anger at these posters has nothing to do with the fact they are for a no... they are plain and simply bullshít. And promoted by a man who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him. AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.

Wonders if this guy Fianna Fáil farmer Cork Culchie Redneck fan boy?

No what you can't trust is Europe. Vote TA/yes for jobs and recovery was the slogan in the Lisbon treaty. Each treaty more and more of our sovereignty is given away. All to save Franco German banks. The IFA should be ******* ashamed of itself supporting this fiscal treaty. Of course they still get the cheques from Brussels.

meglome

chris2008x wrote: »

Wonders if this guy Fianna Fáil farmer Cork Culchie Redneck fan boy?

I have genuinely no idea what that means

chris2008x wrote: »

No what you can't trust is Europe. Vote TA/yes for jobs and recovery was the slogan in the Lisbon treaty. Each treaty more and more of our sovereignty is given away. All to save Franco German banks. The IFA should be ******* ashamed of itself supporting this fiscal treaty. Of course they still get the cheques from Brussels.

Okay let's see.

1. 'Europe' didn't say 'yes for jobs' our own elected government did. Here's a list of No side lies since we're on the subject of people lying. So if we need to trust someone the no side lied far more.
2. You know Sinn Fein have claimed we've lost our sovereignty in every treaty we've had with Europe since 1973. Yet we were perfectly 'sovereign' when we inflated a construction bubble to wreck our own economy. And 'Europe' couldn't do a damn thing about it.
3. Nobody, not a single soul, has shown any proof we bailed out German and French banks. Our central bank data shows quite the opposite if anyone bothered to check. See here for the figures.
4. Yes most of a farmers income comes from Europe. Why the hell would they shoot themselves in the foot?

meglome wrote: »

hang on a minute now... let's be very clear about the time-frame
Recession/Bubble Bursts = Mid 2008
Lisbon treaty law = December 2009

We had a massive construction bubble burst and a world recession happen before the Lisbon treaty came into force. So while our domestic economy is is bad shape exports have been booming. So jobs must have been created for those exports, though they cannot make up for the mess we created before the Lisbon treaty came into effect.

Actually I posted about this some time back. Let me see can I find it...

meglome wrote: »

...BTW the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 2009, the recession started over a year earlier. So you're complaining that your plane was late when the engines had been damaged by a bird strike and demanding to know why the faster wingtips put on afterwards didn't sort it. They are two different things, it's very simple.

Do you by any chance have any reasons for voting no that are actually in the treaty? Is that too much to ask?

NoAnimalID

The banking- casino mafia is already manipulating the yes side to scared people of and get their pawn corporate socialists reelected.

Socialism cant fail since it is an ideal and do not have a mind of its own! It just is what those in charge make of it just like today's fail capitalism.

Corporation are the biggest public fund users (Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Nationwide, Irish Life and Permanent using 30% of Ireland's GDP debt).

What amazes me is how people are willing to ratify a treaty that will glue Ireland under a Bus. Britain and Czech Republic already opted out, Ireland should do same.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

I may be a Yes voter but honestly my anger at these posters has nothing to do with the fact they are for a no... they are plain and simply bullshít. And promoted by a man who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him. AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.

Well, assuming that the sentiment on the part of the Libertas group is sincere it is a stance that has some merits.

It's not one that I would ascribe to mind you as I don't believe that the ratification of international treaties should be used as bargaining chips - nor do I believe that such bargaining chips have all that much value in a situation where there is no veto.

NoAnimalID

Ireland shouldn't negotiate with the EU, but Ireland being Ireland, they will acquiesce, despite Kenny's present posture. This is reminiscent of the scene in "Blazing Saddles", where the black sheriff puts a gun to his own head and says in substance, "No one move or the sheriff gets it in the head." Ireland will be as stupid as the townsfolk in the movie. We can use our veto.

johnnyskeleton

chris2008x wrote: »

Wonders if this guy Fianna Fáil farmer Cork Culchie Redneck fan boy?

No what you can't trust is Europe. Vote TA/yes for jobs and recovery was the slogan in the Lisbon treaty. Each treaty more and more of our sovereignty is given away. All to save Franco German banks. The IFA should be ******* ashamed of itself supporting this fiscal treaty. Of course they still get the cheques from Brussels.

No, what annoys me is the whole "votaíl tá" thing. Of course, as an Oirish man you probably sees nothing wrong with that frase.

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, assuming that the sentiment on the part of the Libertas group is sincere it is a stance that has some merits.

It's not one that I would ascribe to mind you as I don't believe that the ratification of international treaties should be used as bargaining chips - nor do I believe that such bargaining chips have all that much value in a situation where there is no veto.

Well I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but Libertas have said quite a lot of stuff which has been completely untrue. They said a load of stuff on Lisbon and not a bit of it was true or has happened. They have also gone back on political promises about what they'd do or wouldn't do. And quite frankly Ganley is shady as feck.

EURATS

meglome wrote: »

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, assuming that the sentiment on the part of the Libertas group is sincere it is a stance that has some merits.

It's not one that I would ascribe to mind you as I don't believe that the ratification of international treaties should be used as bargaining chips - nor do I believe that such bargaining chips have all that much value in a situation where there is no veto.

Well I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but Libertas have said quite a lot of stuff which has been completely untrue. They said a load of stuff on Lisbon and not a bit of it was true or has happened. They have also gone back on political promises about what they'd do or wouldn't do. And quite frankly Ganley is shady as feck.

We were also promised jobs with Lisbon. Do you see many of them available? Do you reckon there was truth in that promise?

K-9

EURATS wrote: »

We were also promised jobs with Lisbon. Do you see many of them available? Do you reckon there was truth in that promise?

We've had 10's of thousands of jobs announced since then. Unfortunately unemployment more than doubled between the rejection of Lisbon and Lisbon 2!

EURATS

K-9 wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

We were also promised jobs with Lisbon. Do you see many of them available? Do you reckon there was truth in that promise?

We've had 10's of thousands of jobs announced since then. Unfortunately unemployment more than doubled between the rejection of Lisbon and Lisbon 2!

I'd say you're aware of the length of the dole ques and emigration levels, so long term it has been far from true unfortunately.

meglome

EURATS wrote: »

I'd say you're aware of the length of the dole ques and emigration levels, so long term it has been far from true unfortunately.

As I was saying.

meglome wrote: »

Ah for the love of god will people stop going on about the stupid yes for jobs slogan.

"The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences", really that right? Try this link.

meglome wrote: »

hang on a minute now... let's be very clear about the time-frame
Recession/Bubble Bursts = Mid 2008
Lisbon treaty law = December 2009

We had a massive construction bubble burst and a world recession happen before the Lisbon treaty came into force. So while our domestic economy is is bad shape exports have been booming. So jobs must have been created for those exports, though they cannot make up for the mess we created before the Lisbon treaty came into effect.

Actually I posted about this some time back. Let me see can I find it...

meglome wrote: »

...BTW the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 2009, the recession started over a year earlier. So you're complaining that your plane was late when the engines had been damaged by a bird strike and demanding to know why the faster wingtips put on afterwards didn't sort it. They are two different things, it's very simple.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to put figures on that - at the height of the bubble, 12% of employment was directly in construction, 10.33% of GNP was construction activity, while estimates of construction-related proportions of employment and GNP are around 20-25% - a quarter of the domestic economy. 72% of all domestic bank lending was property-related. 15% of our tax take was based on residential property related taxes alone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BTW has your point got anything to with the content of the treaty we're voting on?

swampgas

NoAnimalID wrote: »

Ireland shouldn't negotiate with the EU, but Ireland being Ireland, they will acquiesce, despite Kenny's present posture. This is reminiscent of the scene in "Blazing Saddles", where the black sheriff puts a gun to his own head and says in substance, "No one move or the sheriff gets it in the head." Ireland will be as stupid as the townsfolk in the movie. We can use our veto.

We don't have a veto - this treaty can and will go ahead without us.

Your Blazing Saddles analogy is amusing, except that in this case Ireland is the sheriff, not the townsfolk - we would be threatening to shoot ourselves in the head if Europe doesn't give us a better deal.

tipptom

Ganly got it right on the last one,if it was left to the FG/FF/ appeasers and the farmers who dont give a sh*t about the country as long as they are getting free cheques they would have sailed the yes vote through,Ganly organised a no vote and straight away we were ensured on corp tax etc but this fiscal treaty will be voted through and then France and Germany will put in an add ons afterwards that suits them that corp tax will be hamonised with god knows what else but funny enough we will have already agreed to these unknowns,we are the laughing stock of europe.

jwilco

Ganley has got the poker analysis correct. Our goverment need to step up and stand up to Europe. At the moment they are not doing that for us.
At least with the posters some printer has got business.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

Okay let's see.
Europe' didn't say 'yes for jobs' our own elected government did.

And our government is part of Europe and helped draft the treaty. Moreover their EU Parliamentary groupings help fund the posters with "yes for jobs" written on them. Indeed, other EU heads of state (in particular Sarcozy) directly stepped in to urge a yes vote. Shesh.

meglome wrote: »

You know [no groups] have claimed we've lost our sovereignty in every treaty we've had with Europe since 1973. Yet we were perfectly 'sovereign' when we inflated a construction bubble to wreck our own economy. And 'Europe' couldn't do a damn thing about it.

Don't you mean "didn't give a damn about it?" Indeed, this treaty will do nothing to stop such a bubble happening again. If the EU valued fiscal stability so much, Greece would not have been accepted into the eurozone, plain and simple.

RandomName2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, what annoys me is the whole "votaíl tá" thing. Of course, as an Oirish man you probably sees nothing wrong with that frase.

Ah it's pretty much to stop Sinn Fein monopolising the whole "dancing at the crossroads" nationalism

swampgas

jwilco wrote: »

Ganley has got the poker analysis correct. Our goverment need to step up and stand up to Europe.

So easy to say, and so very very wrong.

I've known quite a few diplomats, from various countries, and the whole idea of Ireland "playing hardball" is a bit of a joke.

Either you have leverage or you don't. Right now Ireland has very little leverage - we are heavily dependent on the good will and cooperation of our European neighbours.

Any attempt at "hardball" tactics will get us nowhere, and only risks antagonising influential people. Senior politicians have big egos, and they can get very personal and petty when someone frustrates them.

I'm not saying we should be push-overs, I'm saying we have to be realistic about our bargaining position, and we have to choose our battles wisely.

johnnyskeleton

tipptom wrote: »

Ganly got it right on the last one,if it was left to the FG/FF/ appeasers and the farmers who dont give a sh*t about the country as long as they are getting free cheques they would have sailed the yes vote through,Ganly organised a no vote and straight away we were ensured on corp tax etc but this fiscal treaty will be voted through and then France and Germany will put in an add ons afterwards that suits them that corp tax will be hamonised with god knows what else but funny enough we will have already agreed to these unknowns,we are the laughing stock of europe.

Has anyone carried out any studies as to what effect, if any, harmonisation of corporation taxes across europe will have on MNCs in Ireland?

Many of those companies are not here for our 12.5% rate but are here for our loose regualtory system which permits them to set up an Irish company that is tax resident in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands and this means that the US (who will accept transfer pricing arrangements with Ireland but not with the tax havens). Thus, they can pay Cayman corporation tax (0%) while seeming to the US Revenue as though they are paying Irish corporation tax (12.5%). But we don't actually get that money. It's something of a swizz called the "double Irish" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

Next, we have no royalties on intellectual property. So if you are a multinational pharmaceutical company you can base all your patented drugs here (you don't have to make them here, just have some part of the manufacturing process e.g. packaging) and you don't have to pay any tax on it. Sure, you will pay some corporation tax on the manufacturing that is done here, but you are talking a couple of million euro in a multi billion euro operation.

So, between these two things there is a large amount of tax avoidance going on on a global scale. Roughly speaking, the MNC sector has the following economic effects:

1) somewhere around 150k people employed - http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn0904049s/ie0904049q.htm

2) approximately 30bn difference between GNP and GDP

3) approximately 50% of our 3.7bn corporation tax take.

That is a significant contribution to our economy. But what is unclear (deliberately so) is what proportion of that is due to actual investment in Ireland (because of e.g. skilled workforce, access to markets and raw materials etc) and what proportion is a brass plate operation (as outlined above)?

Well, the lion's share of the employment must surely come from actual investment. Although we have lost the likes of Dell, we still have Intel, Microsoft, Google etc who actually do things in Ireland, whether producing products or offering sales/customer support. We also have a lot of companies who are MNCs who are here to provide services to the local economy e.g. Vodafone and they will have significant jobs here. True, some of the packaging jobs are only here to provide some form of base of operations, but I think it is fair to say that overall, most of the jobs in MNCs are here because they want to have jobs here. Microsoft, Google etc operate separate brass plate companies for their profits, but they still see some benefit to employing people directly in Ireland to carry out jobs for them.

On the other hand, the majority of the GDP over GNP comes from the brass plate operations. This difference represents exports over imports and that massive difference is largely due to the amount of international sales of software, pharma etc that are filtered through the economy. In most countries, GNP and GDP will be very close to each other. In Ireland, GDP is nearly 25% more than GNP, due to these operations.

Finally, there is the corporation tax. Half of it comes from MNCs but lets not get excited, that's approximately €1.8bn out of a total tax take of estimated
€35bn.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/economy/2011/qna_q42011.pdf

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2012/Documents/Estimates%20of%20Receipts%20and%20Expenditure%20for%20the%20Year%20ending%2031%20December%202012.pdf

Now, with all that, lets look at the effect of tax harmonisation. If it is the case that corporation tax across all the EU will have a flat rate of say 25%, that will mean that corporation tax will double for companies based in Ireland. But, if they are genuine trading operations they will have nowhere to turn to. If, for example, the UK were to opt out and have a 15% rate, then you might see companies trading from the UK to all over the rest of Europe, but if it is EU wide then they will have no alternative but to pay it or cease trading. Some of the companies will cease trading, but the free market suggests that if there is a profit to be made in the EU another company will come along to fill in. So if done correctly and on a EU wide basis, these companies will not be affected.

As to the brass plate operations, if harmonisation means changes to the rate and not to the regulatory system, then they are likely to carry on regardless. If, for example, you run a software company that channels 9bn though Ireland and pays 100m in tax, you probably won't overly mind if that increases to 200m with the rest remaining largely untaxed. If there are also changes to the regulatory environment, then these companies are likely to leave.

So, in the best of all scenarios, it is possible that tax harmonisation will result in a short term dip but then a return to the same level of economic activity in companies, but with additional taxes raised on foot of that. In the worst of all scenarios, it will drive away all the billions that flow through the Irish economy without touching the domestic economy. It might also affect some jobs and corporation tax payments, but it doesn't seem likely to me that all of the 150k jobs and €1.8bn MNC taxes will just dry up.

Of course, people are told that the MNCs are a massive employer, pay large amounts of tax and that all this will go away if we touch corporation tax. But that is not really the issue, nor is that a guaranteed outcome if the tax harmonisation is EU wide. The real economy will survive based on profits to be made, not on tax schemes.

However, what the politicians are really worred about is that if our GDP reduces to something more in line with our GDP, our €21bn estimated deficit, c. 13% of GDP, will be more like our current deficit:GNP ratio of c. 17%.

So what the Irish people get from MNCs is partially jobs, partially tax income, but mostly the ability to lie about how bad our budgetary system really is.

I'm not saying that increasing corporation tax is a good thing, nor am I advocating tax harmonisation intra EU, I'm simply questioning the orthodoxy of the view that we must must must keep our corporation tax rate at 12.5%. I think we need to realise that the country can no longer be run as a tax laundry and that we have to strip back the country to the point where we can start to build up genuine businessess in genuine industries that make genuine exports. If that means losing the benefits of FDI as outlined above, sure that was never really ours to begin with and that could all move at the stroke of Obama's (or Romney's!) pen.

Zulu

Ganleys shady organisation that peddles in lies is a great signpost for me.

If libertas are saying "no", then I can rest assured "yes" is the correct answer.

johnnyskeleton

swampgas wrote: »

So easy to say, and so very very wrong.

I've known quite a few diplomats, from various countries, and the whole idea of Ireland "playing hardball" is a bit of a joke.

Either you have leverage or you don't. Right now Ireland has very little leverage - we are heavily dependent on the good will and cooperation of our European neighbours.

Any attempt at "hardball" tactics will get us nowhere, and only risks antagonising influential people. Senior politicians have big egos, and they can get very personal and petty when someone frustrates them.

I'm not saying we should be push-overs, I'm saying we have to be realistic about our bargaining position, and we have to choose our battles wisely.

+1

One poker strategm that he seems to have overlooked is the difference between how the chip leader will play and how the short stack will play. The chip leader has more chips than anybody else, so he can use these to take a few risks, bully people out of playing and generally dictate the pace of play. The short stack has the fewest chips and, by contrast, can least afford to lose any chips. So, while the chip leader can easily afford to play every hand and constantly put up a strong front, this strategy will usually wipe out the short stack. Instead, the best way to play the short stack is to fold often and quickly, letting the other players take chunks out of each other while you hold back. If you get a good hand, you play and try to make a few chips back, but always in a very conservative manner.

The important thing to do is not to get noticed because then you can be bullied out of it easily. Instead, you hang in there until you are in a position to re-enter the game properly, e.g. when someone else has been depleted and is now the short stack.

Ireland had the worst budget deficit in all the EU, but in terms of how we are treated by the EU, IMF and the international media, you would think we were better off than many. Now, Greece is having a worse time and we will soon have a lower deficit to GDP ratio than Greece. We have survived the worst part without getting too much attention, and soon we will be in a position to re-enter the game.

It seems to me that the government has a poker strategy than it is working. Ganley's strategy is more the roulette strategy - put everything on 33 black and hope it works out.

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

And our government is part of Europe and helped draft the treaty. Moreover their EU Parliamentary groupings help fund the posters with "yes for jobs" written on them. Indeed, other EU heads of state (in particular Sarcozy) directly stepped in to urge a yes vote. Shesh.

Sure but I was specially addressing the fact that is was our government who promoted yes for jobs, even if they got money from elsewhere.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Don't you mean "didn't give a damn about it?" Indeed, this treaty will do nothing to stop such a bubble happening again. If the EU valued fiscal stability so much, Greece would not have been accepted into the eurozone, plain and simple.

Even if we say for a moment the Fiscal compact wouldn't have stopped anything in past (and we can argue on that) does that stop it being a good idea to vote Yes for the future?

BlitzKrieg

Ganly got it right on the last one,if it was left to the FG/FF/ appeasers and the farmers who dont give a sh*t about the country as long as they are getting free cheques they would have sailed the yes vote through,Ganly organised a no vote and straight away we were ensured on corp tax etc

No we got reassurances on our corp tax etc, the difference was that all those issues were never in danger in the lisbon treaty and it was blatant scaremongering, the EU released an amendment confirming and reassuring that none of those issues were at risk. They didnt add anything new or did the no side *win* anything we just embarassed ourselves freaking out about issues like neutrality and corporation tax and not the content of what we were voting on (something we seem to repeat)

Ozymandius2011

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No we got reassurances on our corp tax etc, the difference was that all those issues were never in danger in the lisbon treaty and it was blatant scaremongering, the EU released an amendment confirming and reassuring that none of those issues were at risk. They didnt add anything new or did the no side *win* anything we just embarassed ourselves freaking out about issues like neutrality and corporation tax and not the content of what we were voting on (something we seem to repeat)

And to this day those assurances have not been added to Croatia's Accession Treaty despite an explicit promise during the Lisbon 2 campaign that they would be. Talk is cheap.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

And to this day those assurances have not been added to Croatia's Accession Treaty despite an explicit promise during the Lisbon 2 campaign that they would be. Talk is cheap.

In fact, those protocols are in the process of being added to the Croatian Accession Treaty right now:

The Czech government yesterday agreed with Ireland's protocol to the Lisbon Treaty on certain guarantees, a source well-versed in the government meeting has told CTK.

In 2008, Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty, regulating the rules of the EU's functioning, in a referendum.

The Irish approved the document only in a repeated referendum held in October 2009, under the Czech Republic's EU presidency, after the EU member states pledged to provide certain guarantees for Ireland.

They include the preservation of Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality and national sovereignty concerning taxation and the right to life and the family (ban on abortion).

The protocol is to come into force by the end of June, 2013.

"The protocol does not contain any new commitments for the Czech Republic, and it only confirms the interpretation of certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty," says the report on the protocol submitted to the government.

http://praguemonitor.com/2012/05/17/govt-nods-irelands-protocol-lisbon-treaty

That was Thursday. The EU Parliament voted on the attachment of the protocols in April. The Croatian Accession Treaty itself is not expected to be ratified until later this year: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/croatia-expects-speedy-ratification-of-accession.

So, entirely wrong, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

My post is still correct because the process is not complete. We can't be certain the Croatian Treaty will be ratified until it happens.

tipptom

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

My post is still correct because the process is not complete. We can't be certain the Croatian Treaty will be ratified until it happens.

So it will be quite easy for Mr Hollande to reverse that and add it to something we have already voted for.

swampgas

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

My post is still correct because the process is not complete. We can't be certain the Croatian Treaty will be ratified until it happens.

Why is Croatia such a big deal in relation to this referendum?

(I'm trying to figure out why the exact timing of Croatia completing a ratification process is such a show-stopper for you.)

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

My post is still correct because the process is not complete. We can't be certain the Croatian Treaty will be ratified until it happens.

Not really - your post very clearly implies that nothing was being done about the Protocols, which is demonstrably false. I also can't help but notice that people voting No don't appear to have been even slightly concerned about the Protocols until now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - your post very clearly implies that nothing was being done about the Protocols, which is demonstrably false. I also can't help but notice that people voting No don't appear to have been even slightly concerned about the Protocols until now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's one of the main things that drive me crazy about the no campaign, the moving of the goalposts. You get "I'm voting no because (insert reason here)". It's pointed out that this reason is not based on the facts. Then you get "I'm voting no (insert different reason here)". This new reason is debunked and on it goes. It's bloody frustrating and very dishonest.

meglome

You know I've been seeing quite a number of people online applauding how correct Ganley was on the Lisbon treaty and I really don't get it it.

I think pretty much everything the said about the Lisbon treaty was a lie or wrong.
Self amending treaty – lie
Saved Brian Cowens Job – wrong
European Army – lie
Our last say on Europe – lie

And now he’s saying “Cut the bank debt or no deal”. When he must know the last government basically paid off all the original bondholders and the bank debt is now our debt. (as much as I would wish it to be different).

Am I missing something?

Ozymandius2011

meglome wrote: »

You know I've been seeing quite a number of people online applauding how correct Ganley was on the Lisbon treaty and I really don't get it it.

I think pretty much everything the said about the Lisbon treaty was a lie or wrong.
Self amending treaty – lie
Saved Brian Cowens Job – wrong
European Army – lie
Our last say on Europe – lie

And now he’s saying “Cut the bank debt or no deal”. When he must know the last government basically paid off all the original bondholders and the bank debt is now our debt. (as much as I would wish it to be different).

Am I missing something?

"Yes for Jobs" was a lie.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

"Yes for Jobs" was a lie.

That's not really answering the question as to what Ganley was correct about. Do you think Ganley (or any of the Lisbon 'no' arguments for that matter) actually were right, with hindsight?

If so which ones, out of curiosity?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's not really answering the question as to what Ganley was correct about. Do you think Ganley (or any of the Lisbon 'no' arguments for that matter) actually were right, with hindsight?

If so which ones, out of curiosity?

He was right that Lisbon would not bring jobs.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He was right that Lisbon would not bring jobs.

I don't remember him particularly claiming that, any more than every No campaigner was duty-bound to disagree with whatever the Yes side said.

You're not exactly backing up the claim "he was right about Lisbon" here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He was right that Lisbon would not bring jobs.

I didn't see that on any Libertas posters? Also I'd like to see a direct quote of Ganley stating there will be no jobs after Lisbon, if you are claiming that he was 'right' about it, lets see where he said it?

Also, FYI, there have been several hundred jobs created in MNC's since the Lisbon treaty passed, the same MNC's who said that it was vitally important for inward investment that we be seen to be a stable, pro Europe country, demonstrated by a 'yes' vote. Just because there has been no net gain in jobs generally, or net fall in unemployment, does not mean no jobs were created in the exact sectors which claimed that they could help sell Ireland Inc. with a 'yes' vote.

Not that I believe personally that there is massively direct causation involved.

It's you making the claim, though, so let's see you back it up, or retract it.

BlitzKrieg

Just to remind everyone on what Libertas said on the lisbon treaty: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055566041

1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.

2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown - they have not yet been drawn up.

3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.

4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.

5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.

oh and scary lizard eyes girl too: https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/247507/91863.jpg


Sadly libertas have pulped their website and I cannot find a stable cache version of their site so you'll have to take the word from posts bringing the points of libertas to boards as your source for now.

PopeBuckfastXVI

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's you making the claim, though, so let's see you back it up, or retract it.

And like that... *whoosh*... he's gone...

EURATS

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's you making the claim, though, so let's see you back it up, or retract it.

And like that... *whoosh*... he's gone...

Well the poll in the other threads hasn't gone. Might not be any more accurate than Red C but still goes to show that a greater proportion of people aren't listening to the YES side...no matter who they drag in here to fight their corner!!!

PopeBuckfastXVI

EURATS wrote: »

Well the poll in the other threads hasn't gone. Might not be any more accurate than Red C but still goes to show that a greater proportion of people aren't listening to the YES side...no matter who they drag in here to fight their corner!!!

I'd say that it's decidedly less accurate than Red C, scientifically. That aside, who has been dragged in here?

EURATS

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Well the poll in the other threads hasn't gone. Might not be any more accurate than Red C but still goes to show that a greater proportion of people aren't listening to the YES side...no matter who they drag in here to fight their corner!!!

I'd say that it's decidedly less accurate than Red C, scientifically. That aside, who has been dragged in here?

And your reasons for making such scientific assumptions?

U know yourself who has been dragged in here. Albeit willingly!!

meglome

EURATS wrote: »

And your reasons for making such scientific assumptions?

U know yourself who has been dragged in here. Albeit willingly!!

meglome wrote: »

After posting on the Journal for the past few weeks about the Fiscal Compact I just wanted to share my observations on how the No side (for the most part) is operating.

No side tactics…
1. Pull on the heart strings.
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.

...it's a sad reflection that the majority (IMO) of the No side are stooping to these.

I think given Sam Vines post about No side lies on the Lisbon treaty it's really doesn't reflect well on the level of debate generally.

I draw your attention to point 6.

EURATS

meglome wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

And your reasons for making such scientific assumptions?

U know yourself who has been dragged in here. Albeit willingly!!

meglome wrote: »

After posting on the Journal for the past few weeks about the Fiscal Compact I just wanted to share my observations on how the No side (for the most part) is operating.

No side tactics…
1. Pull on the heart strings.
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.

...it's a sad reflection that the majority (IMO) of the No side are stooping to these.

I think given Sam Vines post about No side lies on the Lisbon treaty it's really doesn't reflect well on the level of debate generally.

I draw your attention to point 6.

How convenient...none of the above applies to the YES side..well once you believe it..that's the main thing!!!

meglome

EURATS wrote: »

How convenient...none of the above applies to the YES side..well once you believe it..that's the main thing!!!

Well feel free to point out where the yes side did these things. I made this list from the things that were said directly to me.

EURATS

meglome wrote: »

Well feel free to point out where the yes side did these things. I made this list from the things that were said directly to me.

- kenny uses the IRA past to continue to drum up anti Sinn Féin rhetoric..and he knows only too well that this works with a lot of the electorate. He doesn't seem to mind sitting beside (former workers party/official Sinn /official IRA) Eamon Gilmore.

- With regard to pulling on the heart strings, both sides are guilty of this. Remove yourself from denial if you can manage it!


- drumming up nationalist fervour..terrible thing to be proud of your nation. Certainly we have no pride in our clueless and spineless politicians.


- with regards to the Germans...if the shoe fits!



- In relation to referring to sheep and idiots...is it not true to say that the EU is looking to herd all the states into a little pen and when they are fat enough..take them to slaughter?

PopeBuckfastXVI

EURATS wrote: »

And your reasons for making such scientific assumptions?

U know yourself who has been dragged in here. Albeit willingly!!

Red C apply statistically sound methodologies in extrapolating general results from carefully chosen sample data, which matches as closely as possible the general voting populace. The boards poll is of a self selecting sample of the denizens of the politics forum of boards.ie.

I actually don't know myself, I'm genuinely confused as to who you are talking about??