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

dearg lady · 06-10-2009 1:42pm

while 'yes for jobs' would be presumed not to mean 100,000's of job suddenly created, the implication is that if we vote yes there will be more jobs than if we vote no. and tehy referred specificly to this in absoultely looads of posters.

Now obviously sans crystal ball we can't know for sure which is true, but can you give me concrete specific suggestions as to where this job creation would be, as opposed to just, well if we pass Lisbon, economy will improve, more jobs.

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 1:53pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In my opinion, no. You have interpreted a political slogan in an absurdly tight way. That makes worthwhile discussion unreasonably difficult to conduct.

If you want a private conversation, don't conduct it on a discussion forum.

i think i have a right to question these campaign promises, it was sold as a job creation programme, i questioned where these jobs would come from, (not here but on my doorstep) and have been told they will come from...
A) america

europe.

C) if we vote no no other companies will invest here, they will head to poland and other such states....:o

of course i'm going to interpret in a tight way, you subscribe to something when it is defined to you, the definition of the lisbon treaty by the yes camp was mainly job creation, i believed it as much as i believed conscription but seing as people bought it i'm now seeking the answers.
probably being pedantic but meh, you question my questions i shall do likewise.

yes P, a discussion forum, not a forum for waving away posts as some digital absurdity

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 1:55pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

me - "if i vote yes what can i expect to happen regarding jobs"
you - " a yes vote will lead to job creation, just look at the posters by FF FG
labour, they all say yes for jobs"

me - "but how, seeing as we have one of the highest minimum wages in
europe and these new states like poland are already offering better
deals to dell and others and can promise lower wage bills, it's already
happening, the main employment here was construction, thats gone
belly-up, so will a yes vote soothe buyer confidence and help the
banks
start doing what they are supposed to be doing and help our small
businesses get back into order. back to the minimum wage thing,
if you were a multinational and had a choice between say poland, on
european mainland thus reducing logistic costs and have a very low
wage structure or ireland where it's an island, high wage
expectations but voted yes to lisbon, (hold on, so did poland,)
where would your preference be?
if we dropped our minimum wage would that help?
you - "yes for jobs".

*head explode*

Already we have seen that the cost of Irish debt has fallen, the FTSE has risen as have the stocks of many Irish businesses. It has created confidence in the market. Search is disabled at the moment so I can't look the threads up but you might remember them yourself. "Yes to jobs" is a very simplistic sentence, it's all you can fit on a poster. If you ask anyone what it means you will find that they are talking about things like consumer confidence, ECB debt, business confidence and FDI.

Watch now as you completely ignore what I have just said and still cling to the ridiculous idea that the slogan must mean "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over" or they're lying. You really should read about straw men because this is a text book example:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
Person A has position X. (Yes to jobs, a simplistic slogan meaning that a yes vote will help the economy thorough consumer and business confidence as has been shown through the reduction in the cost of debt etc)

Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents position Y. (nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over, 100,000 jobs for Monday)

Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 1:57pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

probably being pedantic

Ya think?

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 2:05pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

*head explode*

Already we have seen that the cost of Irish debt has fallen, the FTSE has risen as have the stocks of many Irish businesses. It has created confidence in the market. Search is disabled at the moment so I can't look the threads up but you might remember them yourself. "Yes to jobs" is a very simplistic sentence, it's all you can fit on a poster. If you ask anyone what it means you will find that they are talking about things like consumer confidence, ECB debt, business confidence and FDI.

Watch now as you completely ignore what I have just said and still cling to the ridiculous idea that the slogan must mean "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over" or they're lying. You really should read about straw men because this is a text book example:

sam, you really think i take time out of my hectic xbox schedule just to disagree and ignore your comments.
agreed, "YES TO JOBS" is a very simplistic sentence designed to fit onto an election poster but the politicians pursuing yes were hardly mutes, they managed to squeeze "YES TO JOBS" into every debate as a precursor to threats that things would get worse with a no vote and still failed to explain where these jobs would come from, (unless we're all conscripted :rolleyes:)
if the lisbon treaty was so essential to sustained economic prosperity and job safety why was it not presented as such in the first vote?
actually, i can answer that, the recession had'nt reduced us to peasants and was not an issue with voters back then

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 2:18pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

sam, you really think i take time out of my hectic xbox schedule just to disagree and ignore your comments.
agreed, "YES TO JOBS" is a very simplistic sentence designed to fit onto an election poster but the politicians pursuing yes were hardly mutes, they managed to squeeze "YES TO JOBS" into every debate as a precursor to threats that things would get worse with a no vote and still failed to explain where these jobs would come from, (unless we're all conscripted :rolleyes:)
if the lisbon treaty was so essential to sustained economic prosperity and job safety why was it not presented as such in the first vote?
actually, i can answer that, the recession had'nt reduced us to peasants and was not an issue with voters back then

Yes you can answer that, that is exactly the right answer. During the first vote we weren't in the middle of the worst recession since the 1920's. Back then Ireland wasn't bankrupt and borrowing €450 million a week just to stay afloat. Back then it didn't really matter so much if we went against our neighbours, at least partially because we could get another shot at it once our objections to the treaty had been handled. An awful lot has changed in the past year, businesses are an awful lot more cautious nowadays and any amount of uncertainty can be the difference between locating here or picking Spain. Yes we have other issues like our high wages but this is also undeniably a factor. I say undeniably because we're not predicting the future anymore, we've seen our stocks rise and the cost of our debt fall since we voted yes.

This is not about an article in the treaty that creates x amount of jobs, it's about Ireland sending a clear message that we know what we want going into the future and more importantly, that we want the same thing as our neighbours. So again, no one ever said that a yes vote would end the recession or instantly create thousands of jobs, that is simply a straw man used to allow no voters to accuse the government of lying

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 2:24pm

fair point well made. the first point anyway.
unfortunately i shall not be removing my straw hat until i find myself back in gainful employment and the irony of fianna fail selling the job factor has dwindled.

the second point, although the no camps fear inducing campaign of higher taxes, conscription and whatever else is quite probably nonsense they have in fact not been proven as lies.
they have been denied by people eager to ratify lisbon but denial of an issue does not render it as untrue.
if i don't meet you on some foreign battlefield in the future sam or the tricolour is deemed unsuitable to use in "our european country", or we're crippled by taxes, when farming in this country merely constitutes a chapter in a history book etc etc i shall admit to your assertion that the no campaigners wee actually guilty of lies.
likewise, if this country is still the sick man of europe when all round us are prospering i shall doff my straw hat in your direction and as the same questions

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 2:37pm

you'll have to forgive the lack of certain letters in my posts, my keyboard is "circling the drain" as they say.
either that or my hay fingers are not suitable for typng, eh sam?:eek:

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 2:41pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

the second point, although the no camps fear inducing campaign of higher taxes, conscription and whatever else is quite probably nonsense they have in fact not been proven as lies.

No they have been proven as lies. Lets take the example of taxes: they claim that article 113 gives the EU control over corporation tax but if we read it:

"The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition."

But now look at the Existing Treaty on European Community Article 93:

"The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14."

so it already exists with almost exactly the same wording. But anyway, in both cases I've highlighted the important terms "indirect taxation" and "acting unanimously". Firstly the decision has to be unanimous so Ireland has a veto on the matter and secondly, an indirect tax is something like VAT, where an intermediary such as a retailer collects it and then files a tax return and sends it onto the government. Corporation tax is a direct tax and is not covered by this article:

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

In the colloquial sense, an indirect tax (such as sales tax, value added tax (VAT), or goods and services tax (GST)) is a tax collected by an intermediary (such as a retail store) from the person who bears the ultimate economic burden of the tax (such as the customer). The intermediary later files a tax return and forwards the tax proceeds to government with the return. In this sense, the term indirect tax is contrasted with a direct tax which is collected directly by government from the persons (legal or natural) on which it is imposed

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

In the colloquial sense, a direct tax is one paid directly to the government by the persons (juristic or natural) on whom it is imposed (often accompanied by a tax return filed by the taxpayer). Examples include some income taxes, some corporate taxes, and transfer taxes such as estate (inheritance) tax and gift tax.

Myth busted

dearg lady · 06-10-2009 2:49pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No they have been proven as lies. Lets take the example of taxes: they claim that article 113 gives the EU control over corporation tax but if we read it:

But now look at the Existing Treaty on European Community Article 93:

so it already exists with almost exactly the same wording. But anyway, in both cases I've highlighted the important terms "indirect taxation" and "acting unanimously". Firstly the decision has to be unanimous so Ireland has a veto on the matter and secondly, an indirect tax is something like VAT, where an intermediary such as a retailer collects it and then files a tax return and sends it onto the government. Corporation tax is a direct tax and is not covered by this article:

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

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

Myth busted

Whats a turnover tax in this context? I wouldn't have thought it was indirect!

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 2:53pm

what about the army, eu anthem and been forced to speak french?

only messing.
kudos on your consistent replies sam.
i might vote yes :eek:

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 3:01pm

dearg lady wrote: »

Whats a turnover tax in this context? I wouldn't have thought it was indirect!

Indirect tax, typically on an ad valorem basis, applicable to a production process or stage. For example, when manufacturing activity is completed, a tax may be charged on some companies. Sales tax occurs when merchandise has been sold. See also Ad Valorem Tax.

http://www.answers.com/topic/turnover-tax
http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-valorem-tax

dearg lady · 06-10-2009 3:13pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://www.answers.com/topic/turnover-tax
http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-valorem-tax

apologie,s I was having a very dizzy moment there, was readin turnover as profit, um d'uh!!! I'm still not convinced about Lisbon tho

time will tell tho

marco_polo · 06-10-2009 3:15pm

dearg lady wrote: »

Whats a turnover tax in this context? I wouldn't have thought it was indirect!

While it has a slightly deciptive name, a turnover tax is generally considered to be a type of a sales tax on goods or services. Unlike vat may be applied at multiple stages and not just at the end point.

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 5:25pm

"In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result. After Ireland last year rejected the EU's Lisbon Treaty -- itself a rehashed carbon-copy of the EU Constitution that Dutch and French voters rebuffed in 2005 -- the Irish are being asked to reconsider. There will be another referendum in early October, Prime Minister Brian Cowen said Wednesday, and this time the Irish are expected to get it right. In Europe, they don't take "no" for an answer.''
The Wall Street Journal, June 26th 2009

i thought this re-vote was to portray a good image of ourselves and europe :eek:

prinz · 06-10-2009 5:30pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

The Wall Street Journal, June 26th 2009

That the one and same WSJ that was providing a soapbox for Ganley's nonsense not so long ago? Hmm American establishment tries to undermine the EU..

fligedlyflick · 06-10-2009 5:40pm

still, it backs up those of us who believes re-voting was a disgrace

Dinner · 06-10-2009 5:48pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

still, it backs up those of us who believes re-voting was a disgrace

Not really. Wasn't that an opinion peice in the European Edition of the WSJ (much smaller circulation) where the author didn't even give their name?

It doesn't back up anything, despite the best efforts of Mary Lou and the like wheeling out the 'Wall Street Journal card' claiming it to be fact and expecting everyone in the yes camp to throw up their hands and exclaim 'Oh well if the WSJ says so then I guess it must be true'.

You'll have to do better than that.

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 5:52pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

still, it backs up those of us who believes re-voting was a disgrace

Those who believe that re-voting was a disgrace have yet to give me an explanation for why that is that fits with reality. It usually goes along the lines of:

Other guy:We shouldn't have to re-vote, it's a disgrace!!!!!

Me: The issues of many people were addressed through the guarantees and the vast majority who voted no due to lack of information have now had over a year to inform themselves

Then it breaks into one of two threads:

1:
Other guy: The guarantees aren't binding
Me: Yes they are and here's conclusive proof
Other guy: <Massive conspiracy theory>

2:
Other guy: They didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country. They addressed other people's issues

And at that point the other guy invariably stops responding and pops up a few days later saying the same thing

sceptre · 06-10-2009 6:00pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

"In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result. After Ireland last year rejected the EU's Lisbon Treaty -- itself a rehashed carbon-copy of the EU Constitution that Dutch and French voters rebuffed in 2005 -- the Irish are being asked to reconsider. There will be another referendum in early October, Prime Minister Brian Cowen said Wednesday, and this time the Irish are expected to get it right. In Europe, they don't take "no" for an answer.''
The Wall Street Journal, June 26th 2009

i thought this re-vote was to portray a good image of ourselves and europe :eek:

Probably just me but I'll take preaching from the WSJ about a legitimate and legally-run referendum when more than a few years have passed since a chunk of the non-conspiracy theory spouting rational world reckons a a few people over there effectively fixed a presidential election.

Also, they really need to check what a rehashed carbon copy is as by definition anything that is rehashed (even assuming that to be true) can't be a carbon copy.

I'm sure if I got my hands on the full article I'd find a few more horse and carriage sized holes in it but that's enough for four lines.

Might be just me.

Scofflaw · 06-10-2009 6:15pm

fligedlyflick wrote: »

still, it backs up those of us who believes re-voting was a disgrace

That's its specific intention, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

fligedlyflick · 07-10-2009 11:32am

i only brought the WSJ piece up as i was not aware of it previously.
i apologise if it seems i was rehashing previous arguments

Elmo · 13-11-2009 12:04pm

I don't particularly want this story in another thread.

Over the course of the debate on the Lisbon treaty a number of poster pointed out that the EDA (European Defence Agency) was saving the government money. And that as Minister of Defence Willie O'Dea acted in good manner to join in partnership with the EDA, however it now comes to my attention that Willie O'Dea and his government have no real intention of saving money in military spending and that Ireland will have to increase military spending to come up to the standards of the EU.

The following quote is from www.rte.ie/news

read on website here

Department of Defence Secretary General Michael Howard has told the Public Accounts Committee he accepts that the leasing of helicopters for the Irish forces taking part in the EUFOR mission in Chad was not done properly.

He said procurement procedures have now been revamped.

Later, he said the transaction was carried out by people who had not done this type of thing before and that it had been done in a rush.

Under questioning, he also admitted that the Irish Air Corps had not even been consulted, saying it would normally be consulted about such issues.

Mr Howard also said the helicopters had not been inspected - he claimed that the helicopters' paperwork was inspected and that it was not usual to inspect the actual aircraft.

The PAC was told that Defence Forces Chief of Staff had been responsible for the leasing of the helicopters in the first instance.

Earlier, in his assessment, Comptroller & Auditor General John Buckley found breaches of procurement practices in the leasing of two helicopters at a cost of €3m.

The helicopters were leased for ten months from June 2008.

In September a question arose as to their certification and they were replaced in January 2009.

John Buckley said there had been no business case for the transaction presented to the Department of Defence, as per proper procedure.

He said the helicopters had been found to be licensed only for the transportation of cargo.

Michael Howard said that between September 2008 and January 2009 - when the replacements arrived - he had kept the unlicensed ones in use in case of emergency.

They were also used for supplies.

I believe that in the coming years Ireland will increase military spending it will have to unless it is to continue to rent helicopters at absurd prices. Regardless of what was said in the Dail by Willie O'Dea on this subject he and his cabinet TDs have overspent and continue to overspend and now during a depression we will invest in the Military rather than Education, Coastal Safety and Policing, Health and Infrastructure.

I think it is a point that I was making in this thread on a number of occasions.

EuskalHerria · 13-11-2009 3:42pm

When do all the jobs we were promised for a yes vote manifest themselves?

humanji · 13-11-2009 3:45pm

EuskalHerria wrote: »

When do all the jobs we were promised for a yes vote manifest themselves?

Around the same time you're conscripted into the EU army after your forced abortion.

prinz · 13-11-2009 3:50pm

EuskalHerria wrote: »

When do all the jobs we were promised for a yes vote manifest themselves?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1112/paddypower.html

Not two days ago..

Max Power1 · 13-11-2009 6:33pm

EuskalHerria wrote: »

When do all the jobs we were promised for a yes vote manifest themselves?

theres 250 jobs announced at paddy power, 250 at bord gais, and i got a job after 10 months on the dole, and theres many more examples out there since a yes vote.

(although i voted no :P)

View · 13-11-2009 6:35pm

Elmo wrote: »

I don't particularly want this story in another thread.

Over the course of the debate on the Lisbon treaty a number of poster pointed out that the EDA (European Defence Agency) was saving the government money. And that as Minister of Defence Willie O'Dea acted in good manner to join in partnership with the EDA, however it now comes to my attention that Willie O'Dea and his government have no real intention of saving money in military spending and that Ireland will have to increase military spending to come up to the standards of the EU.

The following quote is from www.rte.ie/news

read on website here

I believe that in the coming years Ireland will increase military spending it will have to unless it is to continue to rent helicopters at absurd prices. Regardless of what was said in the Dail by Willie O'Dea on this subject he and his cabinet TDs have overspent and continue to overspend and now during a depression we will invest in the Military rather than Education, Coastal Safety and Policing, Health and Infrastructure.

I think it is a point that I was making in this thread on a number of occasions.

This has nothing to do with the EDA. The helicopters were being leased by the Defence forces under Irish procurement procedures. Since Lisbon doesn't enter into force until December 1st, it couldn't apply to this.

As for increasing military spending, have you even read any of the news reports on the size of the financial mess the state is in?

Scofflaw · 13-11-2009 6:53pm

View wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the EDA. The helicopters were being leased by the Defence forces under Irish procurement procedures. Since Lisbon doesn't enter into force until December 1st, it couldn't apply to this.

As for increasing military spending, have you even read any of the news reports on the size of the financial mess the state is in?

Or the Guarantees on how Lisbon doesn't mandate any increase in military spending? But perhaps you simply ignore that sort of thing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Elmo · 13-11-2009 7:31pm

View wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the EDA. The helicopters were being leased by the Defence forces under Irish procurement procedures. Since Lisbon doesn't enter into force until December 1st, it couldn't apply to this.

As for increasing military spending, have you even read any of the news reports on the size of the financial mess the state is in?

Under Lisbon we are to be prepared to help any country in the EU that maybe invade i.e. Afaghan might one day invade the UK. If we have to improve or military we will have to spend money. Willie O'Dea in the Dail stated that the EDA (nothing to do with Lisbon) was there as good value for money. However we have under funded our military for so long that we now are in a situation when we do send tropes aboard and we over spend on rental of helicopters.

Right through out the debate when I asked people how would we be able to improve our military with out increasing spend none were able to give me an answer. IMO this will lead to futher spending across Europe on the Military.

I am just pointing how I feel people were lied to by the Department of Defense and others.

As for increasing military spending, have you even read any of the news reports on the size of the financial mess the state is in?

It doesn't help when people in the Dept. overspend in 2008 during the crash.

Or the Guarantees on how Lisbon doesn't mandate any increase in military spending? But perhaps you simply ignore that sort of thing?

The Guarantees on Lisbon do not effect how much we spend on our Military. Lisbon asks use to improve our military, how do you do that with out increasing spend?

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

Comments