The Yes vote has it

hatrickpatrick

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yep, look at that scare mongering, trying to aim for investment, growth, stability and employment.

The scaremongering is the incredibly obvious implication that all of the above would disappear if we didn't vote yes.
It's just like "yes for jobs" in Lisbon wasn't just saying "a yes vote will bring employment", it was also saying "a no vote will f*ck it completely".

Investment, growth, and employment are mentioned absolutely nowhere in the text of the treaty. Not even indirectly. Stability is, but "stability" isn't a good thing if we're talking about "stable misery", as in we don't expect any major upheavals.

The Waltzing Consumer

Sand wrote: »

True, the country is saved. The bailout will work and in 2013 we'll be back in the markets with unemployment below 11% and 3% economic growth .... forever.

Varadkar is surely overplaying things when he claims the Yes vote means the country can be funded for the next few years - interesting that hes signalling the failure of the bailout there though. I think people will get a rapid punch in the face when they confront the dictates that will be attached to any ESM access.

And of course, having told anyone and everyone that Ireland has no other option than the ESM at all, whatsoever, Ireland will have no choice but to accept any terms demanded of us...wonderful negotiating tactic by the team that brought you the November 2010 bailout, the Irish banking guarantee/NAMA and the much trumpeted non-deal on the promissory notes.

Pffftt, I completely agree, I mean, come on, so obvious, we could just elected Declan Ganley and Richard Boyd Barrett as the Royal Couple, and then bam! 20 Million rich people would have appeared in Ireland, and we could impose the super tax on rich folk, so if we took 5% of their 100 squiglion Euros, we could double that, then multiply it by the gas profits we have in Corrib, subtract the cost of ink cartridges from Sinn Fein, then ta da, problem solved. But the sheeple had other thoughts...thoughts of FEAR

*Economics, SWP style!

The Waltzing Consumer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The scaremongering is the incredibly obvious implication that all of the above would disappear if we didn't vote yes.
It's just like "yes for jobs" in Lisbon wasn't just saying "a yes vote will bring employment", it was also saying "a no vote will f*ck it completely".

Investment, growth, and employment are mentioned absolutely nowhere in the text of the treaty. Not even indirectly. Stability is, but "stability" isn't a good thing if we're talking about "stable misery", as in we don't expect any major upheavals.

I think you are a fairly intelligent chap, so I think you can tell what the purpose of slogans are.

johnnyskeleton

808SOS wrote: »

and thats the problem at the moment we cannot pull our own weight
because of the failure to burn bonds and cut some banks [ahem] loose
and let them [it] float off into the atlantic!

We can and are carrying our own weight. I was not a supporter of the guarantee, subsequent bailouts and NAMa but I accept that those debts have now become national debts. Its too late to say we shouldn't pay them, we are bound to pay them and they have ceased to be bond and bank debts.

Sand

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Pffftt, I completely agree, I mean, come on, so obvious, we could just elected Declan Ganley and Richard Boyd Barrett as the Royal Couple, and then bam! 20 Million rich people would have appeared in Ireland, and we could impose the super tax on rich folk, so if we took 5% of their 100 squiglion Euros, we could double that, then multiply it by the gas profits we have in Corrib, subtract the cost of ink cartridges from Sinn Fein, then ta da, problem solved. But the sheeple had other thoughts...thoughts of FEAR

*Economics, SWP style!

You're coming across as being pretty tense. Chill out, be happy. Ireland is saved. Own the result.

The Waltzing Consumer

Sand wrote: »

You're coming across as being pretty tense. Chill out, be happy. Ireland is saved. Own the result.

I am happy with the result, fair play, that's democracy, worst system of government until you try anything else.

Shea O'Meara

C14N wrote: »

Could anyone let me know who the super rich are? I keep hearing about them and how they got off scot-free but most people seem reluctant to name names. Any help here maybe?

I must restrain myself from colourful adjectives, but without literally naming names; Senior bank officials/executives. Many former and some current Senior Fianna Fail members. Those in the private sector joined at the hip to the aforementioned. The unknown deities known to us mere mortals as 'The Bondholders' blessed be their guarantees.
Basically anyone who was doing very well for themselves and still are doing pretty fine thanks to the private to public burden they don't carry.
We can argue the term 'Super rich', but I would go with the 'Untouchables' who will for generations never feel the brunt of the burden they and their kind bestown upon the worker bees.

Defiler Of The Coffin

tipptom wrote: »

Ha Ha,if they had no blackmail clause added it would have been a NO vote today and the beauracrats in Brussels would have knocked each other down like skittles to get to the podium for the cameras to say"Of course Ireland will have acess to bail out funds",it would have been political suicide not to considering we are supposed to be top of the class in their measures and would have put a death knell on the euro with contaigen and the unfolding spanish H bomb thats being dropped as we speak.Empty threats with the collusion of our courageous hero against the Irish people that was not possible for them to carry out.

You're assuming that countries who would be lending us the money in such a case would be able to sell such a situation to voters. Electorates in the northern countries are getting sick and tired of the perceived indiscipline of the the bad boys in the class. At least this yes vote shows we are doing our damnedest to get our house in order.

Sand

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

You're assuming that countries who would be lending us the money in such a case would be able to sell such a situation to voters. Electorates in the northern countries are getting sick and tired of the perceived indiscipline of the the bad boys in the class. At least this yes vote shows we are doing our damnedest to get our house in order.

Id imagine the average German voter doesnt even know Ireland had a referendum yesterday.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Sand wrote: »

Id imagine the average German voter doesnt even know Ireland had a referendum yesterday.

They know all about Greece, and if Ireland was in a similar situation they'd know all about us too.

Sand

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

They know all about Greece, and if Ireland was in a similar situation they'd know all about us too.

All that says to me is that any goodwill earned with the average German voter by a Yes vote will be drowned out by the anger engendered by the German tabloid press and the Greeks rather self-entitled views.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Sand wrote: »

All that says to me is that any goodwill earned with the average German voter by a Yes vote will be drowned out by the anger engendered by the German tabloid press and the Greeks rather self-entitled views.

I should have qualified my earlier post a bit better. Now that we have access to the ESM we don't have to worry about such things. The point I was trying to make was that if we voted no we would have been at the mercy of other governments and the attitudes of their electorates should we have needed bi-lateral loans.

Einhard

Just by listening to their arguments over the past few days, I've come to the conclusion that most of the people who voted for this treaty are idiots. Not all mind- there have been quite a few incisive, intelligent posts on this forum advocating a No vote. However, listening to the vox pops on the radio today, every single No voter gave reasons for their decision that had absoilutely nothing to do with the treaty. The majority of them related to anger with the government. It's fair enough to be angry in a time of austerity, but to allow that to direct your voting intentions is simply moronic.

The Waltzing Consumer

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

"Yes for stability" *shudder* that is so threatening, I feel bullied, give me "another stick to beat you with" slogans any day by the No side, that's the nice guys if you don't know.

Surely better than "no to the household charge" or "no to water taxes", which are just blatantly misleading people?

I'm not the biggest political person in the world, and I never really differentiated between the separate parties. As far as I was/am concerned, it doesn't really matter who is in government, because we're so far gone now that they'll just be a face on TV spouting their own versions of "moving forward" and other such clichés.


However, when I began to repeatedly see Sinn Fein's absolute, complete and utter nonsense campaign posters, I admit to getting very annoyed at them. Outright angry, if I'm honest.

I'm glad a yes vote went through. Country is on it's knees regardless, so it's the best of a bad situation. I also see no reason why Germany/EU/etc. shouldn't have a say in our financial decisions. Irish Government after Irish Government have proven to be incompetent at best.

We're spending their money, it's only right they get a say in how we spend it. I certainly wouldn't lend anyone on here €20 every week, if I seen them in the pub every Friday night.

hatrickpatrick

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I think you are a fairly intelligent chap, so I think you can tell what the purpose of slogans are.

Of course I can, does that mean I have to approve of them? Both sides were as bad as eachother.
In all honestly I would absolutely love to see a "False advertising" law applied to all referendum posters from the next referendum on. Maybe that would go some way to cutting down on the amount of utter sh!te we have had to put up with the last few times we've had a referendum.

A slogan is fine as long as it's truthful. The vast majority of them this time have not been.

Ted Mosby

808SOS wrote: »

i would have to agree

This is the problem that those who have campaigned for No votes in the last few European referenda keep running into.

There are three constituencies in the Republic. Those who didn't benefit at all during the boom, the suburbs and rural Ireland. Rural Ireland and the suburbs are pro-EU for different reasons and those who didn't benefit from the boom have nothing to lose. It is different with the other two constituencies and the only way that an anti EU referendum campaign can get traction with them is to persuade them that they have something to lose. They aren't "sheeple". Insulting them is a cast iron way that whatever message you have will never get through to them.

PS the Socialist Party's hurley sticks poster motivated at least two yes votes to get out and vote to my knowledge.

tipptom

This treaty was not passed for Stability,not one person I know who voted yes yesterday voted YES because of stability,they voted yes because they felt cornered because of the blackmail clause,if that was not put in in febuary this treaty would have been comfartably defeated yesterday.Democracy is dead.

Amtmann

tipptom wrote: »

This treaty was not passed for Stability,not one person I know who voted yes yesterday voted YES because of stability,they voted yes because they felt cornered because of the blackmail clause,if that was not put in in febuary this treaty would have been comfartably defeated yesterday.Democracy is dead.

Another soundbite! Is it too much to ask you to explain what you mean by "blackmail clause" and why you think it is blackmail?

tipptom

Amtmann wrote: »

Another soundbite! Is it too much to ask you to explain what you mean by "blackmail clause" and why you think it is blackmail?

This goverment colluded with the EU back in febuary to add on that whoever voted against this treaty would not have access to esm funds in the knowledge that we were the only one with a referendum coming up and it worked,if it was not there it would have been defeated.

dvpower

stevedublin wrote: »

Do we get to vote on this a second time, like the Lisbon treaty?

Only if there is a change to the treaty.

Do you think people would vote differently if there was another vote?

The Waltzing Consumer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course I can, does that mean I have to approve of them? Both sides were as bad as eachother.
In all honestly I would absolutely love to see a "False advertising" law applied to all referendum posters from the next referendum on. Maybe that would go some way to cutting down on the amount of utter sh!te we have had to put up with the last few times we've had a referendum.

A slogan is fine as long as it's truthful. The vast majority of them this time have not been.

No you don't have to approve, and I would have similar opinions about posters.

I don't think both sides were as bad as each other if we look at posters. I think one of the winning points for the Yes side was that they were clever enough to limit what they put on posters, they were for the vast majority, just aspirational positive slogans which were simple and easy to understand. The vast majority of No posters were angry, negative and and a huge portion were unrelated and more threatening.

As for your last point, a slogan is fine as long as it's truthful, I don't think their is a way to measure that. For example, take the long talked about Lisbon yes to jobs poster. How do you measure that from an advertising standards point of view. Thousands of jobs have been created since Lisbon came into effect, but also a lot more, mainly construction jobs, have been lost. How could you ever put what you want into practice? Should posters be limited to the treaty content?

later12

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

As for your last point, a slogan is fine as long as it's truthful, I don't think their is a way to measure that. For example, take the long talked about Lisbon yes to jobs poster. How do you measure that from an advertising standards point of view. Thousands of jobs have been created since Lisbon came into effect, but also a lot more, mainly construction jobs, have been lost. How could you ever put what you want into practice? Should posters be limited to the treaty content?

I agree there is no reliable way to measure truthfulness, and I wouldn't agree on posters being limited to a certain range of discussion.

This is where human intelligence and the ability to discern a cogent argument from mythology comes into play. At a certain point, you just have to trust the ability of the public to behave like adults.

That's something a lot of people who have high opinions of their own intelligence tend to have trouble with ("democracy is like, totally flawed" says many the boy intellectual whose own utopia is not the aspiration of the masses).

Personally, I don't necessarily have faith in the people to make the "right" decisions, but I have faith in their ability to make the decisions that they feel are right for them. That's about as much as we can expect to ask for.

Oasis_Dublin

Relating to the yes vote, I have just seen the Thomas Byrne clip from yesterday. His arrogance seems to have undone whatever good work they can claim their campaigning achieved.

raymon

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Relating to the yes vote, I have just seen the Thomas Byrne clip from yesterday. His arrogance seems to have undone whatever good work they can claim their campaigning achieved.

I agree . I think he said "Fianna Fail won the referendum vote."

What arrogance indeed.

When FF decided to support the treaty , it actually turned me off and made me question the treaty a lot more.

Happyman42

raymon wrote: »

I agree . I think he said "Fianna Fail won the referendum vote."

What arrogance indeed.

When FF decided to support the treaty , it actually turned me off and made me question the treaty a lot more.

FF took a position that allowed them to make 'local' political capital, they were able to do that because they know that this treaty will not make one bit of difference or they can use it to make further political capital as FG/Lab slide in the polls due to increased austerity by saying, 'We helped you to get a Yes vote' where is the deal? I would bet my house on hearing Michael Martin spouting this in the dreaded future......if I had a house!