Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

ei.sdraob · 01-09-2009 04:13PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

What has rising unemployment got to do with it. Dell outsourced their operations to another country.
And then you had Waterford Crystal and many other companies
That statement Coir made was not challenged by FF speaker. Nor was the fact about Irish Fisheries being dead as an industry. And he challenged pretty much everything else.

just because it wasn't challenged by FF speaker

does not make these crazy claims true

especially the "our seas got raped by 200 billion" claim trotted out on same show by same Coir guy

Martin 2 · 01-09-2009 04:21PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Its claimed by Yes Side that a No Vote will discourage foreign investment. Yet it actually increased after last vote while going down in Spain after they ratified the treat.

I'm not going to deal with Spain because it's a different country with a very different economy and I don't know a lot about it and I doubt either do you or anyone else on this forum.

Taking Ireland on it's own.
Yes since June 2008, over 6000 jobs have been created in FDI however that does not mean they were generated as a result of the No vote.
-What would the job increase have been had we voted Yes? the multinationals have said that the No has already had a negative effect so that would seem to imply it would have been greater.... everything is relative!
-We are having a second referendum, which has given us a stay of execution in he eyes of the international investment community and the expectation is that we will pass Lisbon the second time. A final No vote is likely to have a more damaging effect.
-A lot of those jobs that have come on line of the last year were probably in the planning stage for the last 4 to 5 years, to see the full effect on the multinational sector will take a certain amount of time.
-One thing is for sure, the multinational and business communities are saying that a yes is more likely to help the investment and a no more likely to damage it.

How is voting No better for the economy or foreign direct investment?

.

Scofflaw · 01-09-2009 05:05PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Its claimed by Yes Side that a No Vote will discourage foreign investment. Yet it actually increased after last vote while going down in Spain after they ratified the treat.

There's a five year lead time for FDI in Ireland. See, for example, here.

Anyone claiming any FDI results in respect of the Treaty, either way, is talking through their hats. You're looking at the results of sales processes that started in 2004.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 05:07PM

Martin 2 wrote: »

I'm not going to deal with Spain because it's a different country with a very different economy and I don't know a lot about it and I doubt either do you or anyone else on this forum.

Taking Ireland on it's own.
Yes since June 2008, over 6000 jobs have been created in FDI however that does not mean they were generated as a result of the No vote.
-What would the job increase have been had we voted Yes? the multinationals have said that the No has already had a negative effect so that would seem to imply it would have been greater.... everything is relative!
-We are having a second referendum, which has given us a stay of execution in he eyes of the international investment community and the expectation is that we will pass Lisbon the second time. A final No vote is likely to have a more damaging effect.
-A lot of those jobs that have come on line of the last year were probably in the planning stage for the last 4 to 5 years, to see the full effect on the multinational sector will take a certain amount of time.
-One thing is for sure, the multinational and business communities are saying that a yes is more likely to help the investment and a no more likely to damage it.

How is voting No better for the economy or foreign direct investment?

.

Yes since June 2008, over 6000 jobs have been created in FDI however that does not mean they were generated as a result of the No vote.

Who said the No vote generated an increase. By those figures, No vote didnt have an adverse effect on FDI sector right?

nesf · 01-09-2009 05:08PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Its claimed by Yes Side that a No Vote will discourage foreign investment. Yet it actually increased after last vote while going down in Spain after they ratified the treat.

That means absolutely nothing! Anyone picking out one year and saying that represents a trend while not taking into account other factors present in these economies is talking ****.

Zenemy · 01-09-2009 05:12PM

What makes me angry is that the good law abiding citizens, who are totally entitled to their view and opinions, are so sure that the government acts in the people's best interests.

What about the recent health service scandal...? Who benefits? The people?
Bank scandals? NAMA? Are you sure people?

Without listing all the dodgy deeds of our rulers, I have seen enough evidence to happen to believe that our government (and others) is being lined up as some sort of puppet for europe. Is it OK with you 'Pillars' that I think that?

Shouldn't my view be taken into account as a reasonable one? Instead of (uneducated) idiots coming on here and ridiculing No voters as 'Loonies and Right/Left Extremists'

You dozey gets really sicken me, do some research.

WAKE UP IRELAND, WE BUILT THE WORLD WE CAN FIX THIS COUNTRY!

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 05:15PM

nesf wrote: »

That means absolutely nothing! Anyone picking out one year and saying that represents a trend while not taking into account other factors present in these economies is talking ****.

Okay lets look at the case of Dell. Outsourced to Poland where wage bill was lower. Did that have anything to do with No vote?

nesf · 01-09-2009 05:16PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay lets look at the case of Dell. Outsourced to Poland where wage bill was lower. Did that have anything to do with No vote?

Nope, that's down to structural issues within the economy, mainly our high wage level. But no one sensible on the Yes side blames the No vote for that.

Scofflaw · 01-09-2009 05:17PM

Zenemy wrote: »

What makes me angry is that the good law abiding citizens, who are totally entitled to their view and opinions, are so sure that the government acts in the people's best interests.

What about the recent health service scandal...? Who benefits? The people?
Bank scandals? NAMA? Are you sure people?

Without listing all the dodgy deeds of our rulers, I have seen enough evidence to happen to believe that our government (and others) is being lined up as some sort of puppet for europe. Is it OK with you 'Pillars' that I think that?

Shouldn't my view be taken into account as a reasonable one? Instead of (uneducated) idiots coming on here and ridiculing No voters as 'Loonies and Right/Left Extremists'

You dozey gets really sicken me, do some research.

WAKE UP IRELAND, WE BUILT THE WORLD WE CAN FIX THIS COUNTRY!

Take a week to read the forum charter.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Martin 2 · 01-09-2009 05:21PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a five year lead time for FDI in Ireland. See, for example, here.

Anyone claiming any FDI results in respect of the Treaty, either way, is talking through their hats. You're looking at the results of sales processes that started in 2004.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, I agree with you to a certain extent and that was one of my points however even if there is a five year lead time nothing is decided till the final signoff, nonetheless that was probably before the Lisbon result.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 05:36PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a five year lead time for FDI in Ireland. See, for example, here.

Anyone claiming any FDI results in respect of the Treaty, either way, is talking through their hats. You're looking at the results of sales processes that started in 2004.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Whats annoying is that people fronting these campaigns (and I assume not EVERYTHING the yes campaign say is Gospel) spouts these figures which turn out to be misleading. I mean these campaigns are heavily funded so we can assume they have researched their facts before putting them out.
I understand a lot of it is to do with spin but its annoying.

Martin 2 · 01-09-2009 05:40PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes since June 2008, over 6000 jobs have been created in FDI however that does not mean they were generated as a result of the No vote.

Who said the No vote generated an increase. By those figures, No vote didnt have an adverse effect on FDI sector right?

The truth is I don't know and I'm not sure who does, as Scofflaw has said the sale process takes about 5 years so most of those jobs had been earmarked long before the Lisbon result
As to the whether anybody pulled their investments or are posponing them as a result of the No vote I honestly don't know... I'll try to find out

What I do know is that the multinational sector is advocating a Yes vote and the consequences of either vote will take some time to manifest themselves

.

ei.sdraob · 01-09-2009 05:49PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Whats annoying is that people fronting these campaigns (and I assume not EVERYTHING the yes campaign say is Gospel) spouts these figures which turn out to be misleading. I mean these campaigns are heavily funded so we can assume they have researched their facts before putting them out.
I understand a lot of it is to do with spin but its annoying.

Coir and research? :pac: :pac: :pac:

they pull alot of figures out of their *** but not references to support it

a tactic often employed by creationists (who are one of a kind with them anyways)

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 06:41PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well you can have two papers owned by same company but who have different Ideologies.

No they can have different markets, the ideology would be the same

I think the murdock empire is enough proof of that.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 07:04PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No they can have different markets, the ideology would be the same

I think the murdock empire is enough proof of that.

Well tribune and Independent a good example. Two different ideologies there.

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 07:22PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well tribune and Independent a good example. Two different ideologies there.

if you mean the sunday tribune and irish independent, they are owned by different companies

sunday tribune http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Tribune

owned by: tribune newspapers

Irish independent is owned by independent news and media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Independent

now they both have offices on talbot street and may share the same building (havnt confirmed it), in which case it would have been the more apt choice for Coir to use as an example rather then today fm and newstalk, but he didnt.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 07:28PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

if you mean the sunday tribune and irish independent, they are owned by different companies

sunday tribune http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Tribune

owned by: tribune newspapers

Irish independent is owned by independent news and media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Independent

now they both have offices on talbot street and may share the same building (havnt confirmed it), in which case it would have been the more apt choice for Coir to use as an example rather then today fm and newstalk, but he didnt.

Yes but up until recently AJ O Reilly funded both papers

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 07:34PM

do you mean Tony O'Reilly?

I cant find any link between the two papers beyond former editors moving from one to the other?

Do you have a link for me to back up your claim please?

EDIT:

there we go just found it

In 1993, the group bought into the Sunday Tribune, in which it now owns 98% of the issued share capital and over which it has considerable influence. As INM technically only holds 29.9% of voting shares and so lacks management control, it does not consolidate the results of the Tribune, which is loss-making, with accumulated losses of around 45 million euro since acquisition[2].

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 07:37PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

do you mean Tony O'Reilly?

I cant find any link between the two papers beyond former editors moving from one to the other?

Do you have a link for me to back up your claim please?

EDIT:

there we go just found it

Sorry it well known that O'Reilly was involved with Tribune
this is link though for you.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83766

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 07:49PM

that article proves my point though, since taking over Reilly has changed the newspaper to be more in line with his own goals and policies

but he's the only one paying all the Sunday Tribune's salaries and bills. Which explains why it shamelessly, just a fortnight ago, poked a five-page dig at O'Reilly's corporate rival Denis O'Brien who is trying to take over Sir Anto's INM. The Sunday Tribune has deceptively swapped good news reporting for opinion and cheaply-found tabloid stories of human interest.... as expected O'Brien came away without even a bruise.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 07:59PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

that article proves my point though, since taking over Reilly has changed the newspaper to be more in line with his own goals and policies

to be fair I have always liked tribune. (know we are going off topic here so will leave it at this). For me they have always highlighted injustices while Sunday Independent with possibly the exception of the excellent Gene Kerrigan would seem to be aiming towards the high fliers (Life Magazine a good example)

CliodhnaB · 01-09-2009 08:09PM

im voting no anyway. Doesnt show alot of hope for us if there willing to ignore our choce to reject it. the union are pushing it on us until we take it. It may seem postive. i think the consequences would be bigger!!!!!:P

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 08:16PM

CliodhnaB wrote: »

im voting no anyway. Doesnt show alot of hope for us if there willing to ignore our choce to reject it. the union are pushing it on us until we take it. It may seem postive. i think the consequences would be bigger!!!!!:P

This will interest you so. A Tipperary Farmer seeking a judicial review in attempt to stop Lisbon two vote given that he feels it is a "breach of the constitution".

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0901/eulisbon.html

Dinner · 01-09-2009 08:30PM

CliodhnaB wrote: »

im voting no anyway. Doesnt show alot of hope for us if there willing to ignore our choce to reject it.

They didn't reject our choice. The treaty was not ratified.

The studies that were undertook after the vote showed that a lack of knowldge was the main cause of rejection followed by reasons that were addressed through the guarantees.

With some of the issues sorted out it is not undemocratic to have a second vote.

CliodhnaB · 01-09-2009 08:31PM

heard it on the news. exactly what got me thinking. hes dead right regardless of whatever lame excuse they come up with to cover there own holes.

CliodhnaB · 01-09-2009 08:34PM

clearly we have different views here.. this is how i see it.

Dinner · 01-09-2009 08:40PM

CliodhnaB wrote: »

clearly we have different views here.. this is how i see it.

Except your view 'forgets' to add in all the work that has been done since the last vote.

If the situation was "wrong answer, try again" then my opinion would be very different. But it's not like that. Some no campaigners will continue to say that this is the case but it very very clearly isn't.

But the response by the government was to try to address the problems that the Irish people had, I find it to be a good example of democracy in action, find and address the issues and see if that is acceptable to the public.

Which bit is undemocratic?

marco_polo · 01-09-2009 08:46PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

This will interest you so. A Tipperary Farmer seeking a judicial review in attempt to stop Lisbon two vote given that he feels it is a "breach of the constitution".

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0901/eulisbon.html

So people must have too much money.

Why do I get the feeling when he gets shot down in the High Court our Judicial System will become the latest institution added into the great euro elitist conspiracy.

tonycascarino · 01-09-2009 08:47PM

CliodhnaB wrote: »

im voting no anyway. Doesnt show alot of hope for us if there willing to ignore our choce to reject it. the union are pushing it on us until we take it. It may seem postive. i think the consequences would be bigger!!!!!:P

I see it like that too...:)

Eire Go Brach · 01-09-2009 08:47PM

I have already voted on Lisbon. I won't do it again.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments