Yes vote a vote for "Stabiltiy"

Heads the ball

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the point you're missing is a net one. There are no "stable" countries; one would argue the most stable is the USA who are currently $15.9trillion in debt (that's over $50,000 per citizen and over $139,000 per taxpayer).
We must therefore compare ourselves to other "unstabe" countries - what are they doing wrong and/or what can we do to not get in that position.

Furthermore, comparing ourselves to Spain and Greece (et al) is necessary because of our shared currency and issues.

I certainly take your point re we may need to compare ourselves to other program countries to say X is working there and can X work here etc etc... but i dont think blanket "we are not as bad as Spain" works for me. Lets put it this way, if it was election time and a FGer/Labour-er pulled that line I would run him.

I mean what does it prove? Nothing in my opinion. Or at least the person selling this point didnt say:

"We followed policy X and but country Y did not and as a result country Y ended up worse in respect of Z." Like something like that I could buy, but a blanket response (and i have received it on other threads too) is a bit of a cop out.

Its meaningless to use that line in an argument as I could point to Germany and say "we are not as good as they are!" but what would that prove - nothing.

I mean one of your fellow mods is pleading with me on another thread to give him a number to back up my point. And in general thats a fair question so perhaps showing how exactly not being as bad as Spain supports the stability assertion would help...

BOHtox

Max Power1 wrote: »

I see you those.... and raise you.

Ill just leave this here:

Yes to Jobs - Yes to Lisbon.

But yet, where are these jobs?

Have you ever heard an MNC not saying they're here because we're in Europe. The promise wasn't net jobs but there's ~100,000 people employed by these MNCs. Maybe you don't want them...

poeticseraphim

Heads the ball wrote: »

And I think the media have a huge degree of culpability - I cant think of more than three/four journalists/TV presenters who I think are thorough.

I cannot think of any.

Laminations

If you're falling over and someone suggests you put out your hands, do you conclude they were wrong because the fall still hurts?? You don't know how sore landing on your face could've been. And that's the problem, we are trying to stave off a situation and therefore we don't have the experience of that predicted worse situation to compare to how we are now.

You can't ask are we stable. The question is are we more stable now than we would have been if we didn't vote yes. Difficult to gauge as we don't have both situations to compare.

Heads the ball

So it was pretty reckless for the "yes" side to claim a yes vote would bring about stability.

Laminations

Heads the ball wrote: »

So it was pretty reckless for the "yes" side to claim a yes vote would bring about stability.

Nowhere did they claim that the crisis would end with the passing of the treaty. It was always just a part of the solution. Necessary but not sufficient.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

So it was pretty reckless for the "yes" side to claim a yes vote would bring about stability.

Meh, it's pretty standard for politicians to claim that a vote for some proposal will bring us towards some nebulous better state, and equally standard practice for those who oppose the vote to claim that since we're not all the way to whatever that promised better state was the vote was actually worse than useless, and likewise for them to claim that those who voted for the proposal obviously voted because of the claims of their opponents.

Both are political bolloxology and a complete waste of everyone's time. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about politicians doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Meh, it's pretty standard for politicians to claim that a vote for some proposal will bring us towards some nebulous better state, and equally standard practice for those who oppose the vote to claim that since we're not all the way to whatever that promised better state was the vote was actually worse than useless, and likewise for them to claim that those who voted for the proposal obviously voted because of the claims of their opponents.

Both are political bolloxology and a complete waste of everyone's time. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about politicians doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but its lies - not just harmless gob****tery, but lies

We were never going to get stability just for voting yes.

Laminations

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes but its lies - not just harmless gob****tery, but lies

We were never going to get stability just for voting yes.

Take your own metric, stability on a scale of 0 to 100. Once we've moved towards 100 and not towards 0 as a result of the vote then that is towards stability (even if we are at 35).the problem is that the vote alone doesn't determine our movement on the scale and even with the yes vote movement towards stability can be slowed by other factors, but you'd need to explain how voting yes would make us more unstable. And you'd need to do so with some fortune tellers ability to gauge that instability with the one we supposedly prevented.

Dave!

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes but its lies - not just harmless gob****tery, but lies

We were never going to get stability just for voting yes.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that nobody, not even down the pub, locked out of their head, has ever said that, ever. Those words have never been put together in that sequence before, under any circumstances.

Heads the ball

Dave! wrote: »

I'd be pretty confident in saying that nobody, not even down the pub, locked out of their head, has ever said that, ever. Those words have never been put together in that sequence before, under any circumstances.

Ahem. Then you'd be wrong.

http://www.lucindacreighton.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Stability-Treaty-Campaign-Launch.jpg

Laminations

Heads the ball wrote: »

Ahem. Then you'd be wrong.

http://www.lucindacreighton.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Stability-Treaty-Campaign-Launch.jpg

I suppose you take umbrage with the slogan 'seatbelts save lives' because most fatalities the passengers in the cars have seatbelts on. You have little appreciation of the language used in campaigning for preventative measures.

That poster behind LC is no more saying a yes will definitely guarantee stability than a road safety campaign is purporting that a seatbelt will definitely save your life. It's just safer than no seatbelt, and a yes was safer than a no vote in terms of stability.

Heads the ball

Laminations wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Ahem. Then you'd be wrong.

http://www.lucindacreighton.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Stability-Treaty-Campaign-Launch.jpg

I suppose you take umbrage with the slogan 'seatbelts save lives' because most fatalities the passengers in the cars have seatbelts on. You have little appreciation of the language used in campaigning for preventative measures.

That poster behind LC is no more saying a yes will definitely guarantee stability than a road safety campaign is purporting that a seatbelt will definitely save your life. It's just safer than no seatbelt, and a yes was safer than a no vote in terms of stability.

No i dont have issue with seatbelt slogans. As i understand there is evidence that wearing seatbelts has saved lives in the past.

The statement is pretty clear and is unqualified that we should vote yes for stability.

Respectfully, I think it is you who has the under appreciation of language here - I am taking the words at their plain meaning. Seems that it was a lie to me.

Heads the ball

Heads the ball wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Ahem. Then you'd be wrong.

http://www.lucindacreighton.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Stability-Treaty-Campaign-Launch.jpg

I suppose you take umbrage with the slogan 'seatbelts save lives' because most fatalities the passengers in the cars have seatbelts on. You have little appreciation of the language used in campaigning for preventative measures.

That poster behind LC is no more saying a yes will definitely guarantee stability than a road safety campaign is purporting that a seatbelt will definitely save your life. It's just safer than no seatbelt, and a yes was safer than a no vote in terms of stability.

No i dont have issue with seatbelt slogans. As i understand there is evidence that wearing seatbelts has saved lives in the past.

The statement is pretty clear and is unqualified that we should vote yes for stability.

So wheres my stability?

southsiderosie

Heads the ball wrote: »

So wheres my stability?

MOD NOTE:

That's enough. You have not contributed much to this thread beyond a bunch of wild assertions and smart-arse comments that have only served to irritate other posters rather than stimulate discussion. It is not fair to punish everyone else for your acting the bollix, so I'm going to leave the thread open, but don't post in this thread again.

I'll also add that before posting anywhere else in this forum think long and hard about whether your comments drive things forwards, or drive things in circles, because there has been far too much of the latter from you and it needs to stop.

FreudianSlippers

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes but its lies - not just harmless gob****tery, but lies

We were never going to get stability just for voting yes.

No it isn't. Perhaps "Yes for stability" is too simple; what they really meant was "No for more instability and uncertainty"