Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

No Side Tactics

  • 08-05-2012 03:32PM
    #1
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭


    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.

    Don't me wrong I'm not saying this Fiscal Compact is the best thing ever, far from it. But 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.


«13

Comments

  • #2
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    meglome, did you ever consider that people may be voting 'no' because they truly believe it is the right choice. your insistence on this 'yes' vote and that all people who vote 'no' are somehow involved in a conspiracy is certainly not inspiring more people to vote 'yes'. people will vote how they will vote and most will do so out of genuine concern for our country and our future. what that choice may be is up to each individual. some will be moved by the views of different political parties, some will research a little, some will simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want so vote. there is no conspiracy.


  • #3
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭meglome


    ouncer wrote: »
    meglome, did you ever consider that people may be voting 'no' because they truly believe it is the right choice.

    I never suggested otherwise. Though it would be nice if they could articulate the reasons for it without using points 1 to 6.
    ouncer wrote: »
    your insistence on this 'yes' vote and that all people who vote 'no' are somehow involved in a conspiracy is certainly not inspiring more people to vote 'yes'.

    I'd just like facts and logic, which is very lacking from the No side. (See points 1 to 6). Mine is an unexcited yes vote, just not buying the "but we lose all our sovereignty" argument yet again.
    ouncer wrote: »
    people will vote how they will vote and most will do so out of genuine concern for our country and our future.

    Never said otherwise. Though it would be nice if they could articulate the reasons for it without using points 1 to 6.
    ouncer wrote: »
    some will research a little, some will simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want so vote. there is no conspiracy.

    See you say there is no conspiracy but many in the No camp are full of conspiracy stories.


  • #4
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭swampgas


    ouncer wrote: »
    ... some will simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want to vote.

    You would hope that for such an important referendum, that people would actually think it through properly rather than "simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want to vote". Experience indicates otherwise unfortunately.


  • #5
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    its a very complex issue. its not like divorce or the like where it is clear in the voters mind what they are voting for. there is such huge instability in europe at the moment, such a massive debt burden, such a lack of visibility of where europe is going and so many folk simply struggling to put bread on the table. On this basis the referendum has taken on a new life where fiscal controls may be what the voter will vote for but because of the complexity of the issue they may end up voting on personal circumstances or what they consider as being an unfair european regime laying down the law. If you look at most polls it would seem that the No vote leads by a 2 to 1 margin. Is it the right vote? I just don't know. The more I read the more I get concerned about not only the future of Ireland but the future of what has been in the past the worlds major economies. Who's to say that a 'NO' vote will not be the tipping point for the collapse of Europe as we see it today. And then again would this be a good thing or a bad thing? As I said before the European project is constantly learning and correcting but with no clear end vision in site. Will a NO vote help or will it be counter-productive. There is a fine thesis for a phd and I look forward to the results of that phd. And thats what the Irish people are faced with when voting. It is anything but black or white


  • #6
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭meglome


    ouncer wrote: »
    its a very complex issue. its not like divorce or the like where it is clear in the voters mind what they are voting for. there is such huge instability in europe at the moment, such a massive debt burden, such a lack of visibility of where europe is going and so many folk simply struggling to put bread on the table. On this basis the referendum has taken on a new life where fiscal controls may be what the voter will vote for but because of the complexity of the issue they may end up voting on personal circumstances or what they consider as being an unfair european regime laying down the law. If you look at most polls it would seem that the No vote leads by a 2 to 1 margin. Is it the right vote? I just don't know. The more I read the more I get concerned about not only the future of Ireland but the future of what has been in the past the worlds major economies. Who's to say that a 'NO' vote will not be the tipping point for the collapse of Europe as we see it today. And then again would this be a good thing or a bad thing? As I said before the European project is constantly learning and correcting but with no clear end vision in site. Will a NO vote help or will it be counter-productive. There is a fine thesis for a phd and I look forward to the results of that phd. And thats what the Irish people are faced with when voting. It is anything but black or white

    Em sure we don't know how things will all turn out but this treaty is only 14 pages. And sorry but there is no reason for any of the 6 points I posted above to be used while analysing them.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    3DataModem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,210 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    Megalome, old pal...

    I really want a "No" vote because I have £200 bet on it at 2/1

    Best reason I can think of.


  • #8
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    ah for feic sake


    1. Pull on the heart strings.

    sinn fein/socialists pulling on my heat strings. not likely. current government pulling on my heart strings, what a concept
    2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
    now thats just darn funny. we have eamon gilmore/enda,michael telling us we are dead if we vote NO, we have socialists/Sinn Fein telling us we should vote yes. can't think of any one of these folks that could drive me to nationalistic fervour :-)
    3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
    Lucinda Creighton does this best of all :-)
    4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
    For the love of God, FG and LAB are doing just that
    5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
    Feic sake our politicians have blamed everybody else for years
    6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.
    Now wouldn't that be unusual :-)


  • #9
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    On the contrary the majority of the no side argument is the proposition that the F.C. copperfastens austerity, and unlike the yes arguments have been based on the contents of the Treaty. The govt campaign has been the one laced with FUD (Fear Innuendo and Doubt). The govt is not running a yes-campaign. They are running a "the-sky-will-fall-in-if-you-vote-no" campaign. I haven't heard anyone prominent in the no campaign raise the abortion issue.


  • #10
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭meglome


    3DataModem wrote: »
    Megalome, old pal...

    I really want a "No" vote because I have £200 bet on it at 2/1

    Best reason I can think of.

    I appreciate the reason, but I imagine being in the UK will insulate you from repercussions other than losing your 200 quid. So I'll buy you a pint when you lose it ;)


  • #11
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭meglome


    ouncer wrote: »
    ah for feic sake

    I hope you appreciate the difference here. But the list I posted has been said directly to me, in response to me. You have just thrown some muck.
    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    On the contrary the majority of the no side argument is the proposition that the F.C. copperfastens austerity, and unlike the yes arguments have been based on the contents of the Treaty. The govt campaign has been the one laced with FUD (Fear Innuendo and Doubt). The govt is not running a yes-campaign. They are running a "the-sky-will-fall-in-if-you-vote-no" campaign. I haven't heard anyone prominent in the no campaign raise the abortion issue.

    Oh the No side say all sorts of things but that list is my experience of when you try and pin them down. Our government may run and poor campaign and also may like rubbish slogans but the rampant scaremongering I'm seeing about this treaty is pretty much all from the no side.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    meglome wrote: »
    I how appreciate the difference here. But the list I posted have been said directly to me., in response to me. You have just thrown some muck.



    Oh the No side say all sorts of things but that list is my experience of when you try and pin them down. Our government may run and poor campaign and also may like rubbish slogans but the rampant scaremongering I'm seeing about this treaty is pretty much all from the no side.
    So calling a no vote a 'lethal injection to the Irish economy' is not scaremongering? Please. :rolleyes:


  • #13
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭meglome


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    So calling a no vote a 'lethal injection to the Irish economy' is not scaremongering? Please. :rolleyes:

    Let's have the entire piece...
    “Politics is about people and their lives and their careers and their opportunities and that’s what I deal in.

    “I have no intention of delivering a lethal injection to the Irish economy by trying to bridge that extent of the deficit in one year,” the Taoiseach said yesterday.

    Seems okay to me.


  • #14
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    ozy, you don't get away that easy. yes it is easy to say no but if we say no we will have austerity like we have never seen. we have a 16 billion deficit and to correct this will mean a massive correction in the next budget if we vote no. as explained in the past we will also need credit, like any business does, and that credit will cost us a lot if we decide to vote no. the only benefit is that we have finally taken our future under our own control. but for that decision we will pay heavily. the sinn fein/socialast propaganda is rubbish. austerity will be doubled on our country by a 'no' decision. the ultimate benefit is that we decide our future but the cost will be enormous.


  • #15
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    ouncer wrote: »
    ozy, you don't get away that easy. yes it is easy to say no but if we say no we will have austerity like we have never seen. we have a 16 billion deficit and to correct this will mean a massive correction in the next budget if we vote no. as explained in the past we will also need credit, like any business does, and that credit will cost us a lot if we decide to vote no. the only benefit is that we have finally taken our future under our own control. but for that decision we will pay heavily. the sinn fein/socialast propaganda is rubbish. austerity will be doubled on our country by a 'no' decision. the ultimate benefit is that we decide our future but the cost will be enormous.
    Part of the austerity is because the EU is forcing us to bail out the bondholders. By voting no we can unite with Francois Hollande to demand renegotiation of the Fiscal Compact to promote growth not austerity, and to burn the bondholders. That will reduce the debt and consequently bring a balanced budget faster than would otherwise have been the case. You are also forgetting the extortionate cost of the ESM in terms of the requirement for member states to contribute to it which we cannot afford. Public services are being sacrificed on the altar of a vanity-project of a currency.


  • #16
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Part of the austerity is because the EU is forcing us to bail out the bondholders. By voting no we can unite with Francois Hollande to demand renegotiation of the Fiscal Compact to promote growth not austerity, and to burn the bondholders. That will reduce the debt and consequently bring a balanced budget faster than would otherwise have been the case.

    The bondholders have been replaced with official creditors for the most part. We cannot burn the official creditors, we cannot do it without leaving the EU as in it is legally impossible.

    So voting No cannot meaningfully reduce our debt burden, and will have no impact on the "bondholders".

    Voting Yes and working through the Spanish scenario which the ECB is pushing, that Spanish banks are bailed out at an EZ rather than a MS level, just might result in some of the cost of our banking bailout being transferred back to the ESM. A position Patrick Honohan was pushing today in London.


  • #17
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    yes and no. we will for starters never be uniting with Hollande. His stuff was based on winning a presidential election. If we burn bondholders and also vote NO then where is our credit facility into the future. I remain in the NO camp but I want people to understand what the NO vote means. Taxes will go thru the roof and welfare will be halfed. It will not be easy


  • #18
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    ouncer wrote: »
    yes and no. we will for starters never be uniting with Hollande. His stuff was based on winning a presidential election. If we burn bondholders and also vote NO then where is our credit facility into the future. I remain in the NO camp but I want people to understand what the NO vote means. Taxes will go thru the roof and welfare will be halfed. It will not be easy
    That assumes we will need a second bailout and the govt denies that. We can also request an IMF bailout if necessary, which the IMF spokesperson told the Sunday Times before Noonan got to them. The existing EFSF bailout is unaffected. Iceland burned the bondholders and put its banks into receivership and has been back on the bond markets since last year. The EU reminds me of the loanshark in the Terry Duckworth story on Coronation Street threatening dire consequences if we don't pay up.


  • #19
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    ouncer wrote: »
    If we burn bondholders and also vote NO then where is our credit facility into the future.

    We have precious few bondholders left to burn so this cannot be a meaningful part of any one's consideration of the stability treaty (other than as part of the continued misinformation campaign from SF/ ULA)


  • #20
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    the second bailout is a definite. the points have already been explained on this forum. there is no other option if we continue on our current path.


  • #21
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Iceland burned the bondholders and is successfully raising finance on the bond markets ouncer.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Iceland burned the bondholders and is successfully raising finance on the bond markets ouncer.

    Not true.

    1. Iceland allowed its banks to fail which it could do not being an EU Member State. We could not.

    2. That was back in 2008. Since then we have largely replaced the bank creditors with official sector borrowings, so even if we could have burnt the banking bondholders in '08-'10 we cannot do so now.

    3. Iceland has managed a private placement of foreign currency (US$) at yields, which factoring in the forex risk Iceland is carrying, comparable to our current bond yields, and greatly exceed the borrowing costs we could expect from the ESM if we approve the stability treaty.

    So this is not a reason for voting no.


  • #23
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.

    Don't me wrong I'm not saying this Fiscal Compact is the best thing ever, far from it. But 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.

    Yes side tactics:
    1: Try to scare the bejaysus out of people
    2: Biased weasel words (eg, calling it the 'stability' treaty instead of the fiscal treaty)
    3: The usual irrelevant sh!te - yes for jobs, yes for Europe, etc
    4: On the above point, acting as if voting for or against this treaty = voting for or against our very membership of the EU
    5: Guilt tripping the electorate over the state of the nation
    6: Claim that the no side are communists, and that somehow being a protestor or activist automatically means that (a) you're unemployed, (b) lazy, (c) don't care about the issue at hand and (d) have no right to a voice or an opinion,
    7: Claim that by voting no, you are effectively endorsing others who advocate a no (guilt by association, e.g "Sure why don't you just vote for the shinners in the next election then")

    Need I go on?


  • #24
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    hence the quandry. this is not a simple yes or no. i see the arguments on this thread and on many others. The arguments are complex and yet I am struggling to vote one way or the other. Was definite on a NO vote but now I'm just darned confused. All the more reason that this referendum is mad. And how is the guy on the street supposed to vote?


  • #25
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    ouncer wrote: »
    All the more reason that this referendum is mad. And how is the guy on the street supposed to vote?

    zactly! The whole thing is mad and should not be being decided by a plebiscite but such is the Crotty legacy.

    I'm vaguely hoping that the Pringle case might give the SC the opportunity to revisit Crotty and put that mistake back in its box, or at least distinguish the bejaysus out of it to restrict future referenda.

    This is complex, and I don't think very many people are enthusiastically on one side or the other. Personally I'm a reluctant yes because I think the chances of us avoiding a second bailout if we don't have guaranteed ESM access will disappear.

    Ironic but denying ourselves the second bailout fund increases the likelihood that we'll need that second bailout.

    I also think most of the substantive provisions are already in the six pack so the treaty changes very little on the ground if we approve it. As the Commission suggested today even the six pack has flexibility where needed - Spain being the case in point.


  • #26
    ouncer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭ouncer


    beef. understand your viewpoint but we as a nation do not strategically form our countries policy. we expect this from our politicians. and these monkeys have failed us which is likely that we will vote no against europe just to vote against the monkeys that are our politicians. it is staggering that these individuals have not been able to advise us left or right


  • #27
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I'd just like to state for the record that I'm advocating a no vote because I honestly believe it's a bad treaty, a bad policy, and a generally bad direction for the EU to take.

    Just pre-empting anyone accusing me of being a shinner, or voting no "to spite our government", or voting no as some kind of bargaining counter, or voting no because I'm a commie, or... etc etc etc.

    The fact that this post is necessary says it all. The tactics of some on the yes side are a disgrace. And you accuse the no side of emotional blackmail...?


  • #28
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I'd just like to state for the record that I'm advocating a no vote because I honestly believe it's a bad treaty, a bad policy, and a generally bad direction for the EU to take.

    You've obviously thought about this which is good.

    Do you mind my asking which particular elements of the treaty, as distinct from the six pack which already binds us, do you object to?

    Not the 60% limit as that is in the six pack. Not the structural deficit rule as that already binds us. Not the Commission having oversight of our budget as we're already in excessive deficit procedure under the existing rules and will remain so until 2015 at the earliest and possibly until we comply with the 60% debt to GDP ratio (as is provided for under the TFEU).

    So what precisely is the objectionable departure in this treaty?


  • #29
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,302 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Part of the austerity is because the EU is forcing us to bail out the bondholders. By voting no we can unite with Francois Hollande to demand renegotiation of the Fiscal Compact to promote growth not austerity, and to burn the bondholders. That will reduce the debt and consequently bring a balanced budget faster than would otherwise have been the case. You are also forgetting the extortionate cost of the ESM in terms of the requirement for member states to contribute to it which we cannot afford. Public services are being sacrificed on the altar of a vanity-project of a currency.

    There seems to be an assumption that we must vote No to do that. Hollande is still going to be there as our knight in shining armor if we vote yes or no.

    As for the extortionate cost of the ESM, the current EU interest rate was reduced to 3.5/4%, lower than the IMF and the British loan.
    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    That assumes we will need a second bailout and the govt denies that. We can also request an IMF bailout if necessary, which the IMF spokesperson told the Sunday Times before Noonan got to them. The existing EFSF bailout is unaffected. Iceland burned the bondholders and put its banks into receivership and has been back on the bond markets since last year. The EU reminds me of the loanshark in the Terry Duckworth story on Coronation Street threatening dire consequences if we don't pay up.

    The IMF spokesman said we can apply, he doesn't have the authority to say we'd get it. We already are over the IMF lending limit and the IMF are finding it hard to raise additional finance. As far as I can see we'd need to pay them back most of their funding to borrow more.

    The EFSF will run out about the same time we'll be looking for additional funding. Even if we did get more from them, what's to stop inserting similar criteria?

    I do find it strange that many who would have opposed the Troika now seem to welcome them as an alternative!
    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Iceland burned the bondholders and is successfully raising finance on the bond markets ouncer.

    Our bond rates have dropped substantially over the last year or so.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #30
    TehDagsBass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 223 ✭✭TehDagsBass


    @meglome: What, may I asked, spurred you to waste your time on the comments section on TheJournal?

    The reason I ask is that I personally see the comments section there as being choc-full of the dregs of the Irish online. Devoid of any rational, logical or in any way educated discussion, it is a soapbox for uneducated, socialist clowns to post their vacuous, populist rhetoric and slap one another's backs. Indeed, those writing and publishing to TheJournal seem to merely cater for these people now. I genuinely had a laugh at their plans to produce a paper copy of what amounts to their summary of other news outlets stories and the reposting of things trending on twitter. I really did.

    The very same clowns, I might add, are found every single day spamming the comments to wall posts on Fine Gael's facebook page, seemingly forgetting that we have a two party Government. How convenient, given that most of them were Labour voters in the last General Election.

    You are not going to change these people's minds here or on TheJournal by posting facts or trying to argue with them using logic, they are the proponents of bar-stool politics and are influenced by what they perceive will benefit them the most, such as not paying charges, and that only. Now, let us not make mistakes, this does not refer to "them" as being in the plural or community sense, it does not mean they act in a way they believe will benefit the country the most in the long or short term, but what will benefit them as individuals the most and as quickly as possible.

    They lack any form of fundamental understanding of politics or economics and thus want their pockets alleviated NOW with no regard for any potential consequences in the short term, never mind the long term. Evidence of this can be seen in their reaction to Lisbon, they seem to have genuinely believed that there would be jobs created overnight and are now angry that there wasn't!

    They have no need for things like stability, certainty and confidence. Sure how will they affect their drinking money this weekend, wha?! This complete disregard for these things is echoed and pushed in the media and the Dail by socialist failures such as Richard Boyd-Barrett, Gerry Adams and Joe Higgins and thus the populist socialist movement has gathered pace, despite the fact that not one has credible policies and that any of them pose the potential for absolute catastrophe should any of their bull**** dreams be realised, such as giving the finger to Europe over the debt the country owes. That is without even breaching the subject of what a complete sham these entities are themselves.

    Given this, what did you expect? Of course their entire campaign lacks any real substance. It did for Lisbon, it will now and indeed it will for any EU referendum that comes up in the future. Since the inception of the EC, Sinn Fein have urged people to vote against any referendum put to them ... how would we ever expect a reasonable argument on a paper from them, given that they haven't provided one in the entire history of the union?!

    Expect nothing and be pleased if something of substance is provided, however history shows that it never will be. You can't argue things such as the benefits of certainty, stability and market confidence to people who neither understand the variables involved nor how they affect the country or how a swing in the state of these variables would affect the country and our daily lives. People who posses no desire to understand them/such things and who want results for their own position and want them now, without putting any effort in at all (which is what put them in their own personal position in the first place...).

    You can't argue the merits of a piece of text or legislation with people who will never, ever take the time to actually read the thing and make their mind up for themselves. Sure why would they, when they can get their political knowledge from their mate down in the pub, who himself is probably spoon fed it by a source such as Sinn Fein? And above all, how can you argue the points of a text with people who simply want to say "No", for the sake of doing so? Because they're angry there's Polish people in the country, because they've a pot-hole on their road, because they don't like Enda Kenny's accent, or any of the other frivolous bollocks these people use their votes for?

    However, thankfully, it truly is a case of the people who know the least being the loudest, as the polls (not polls on socialist hubs such as here and TheJournal, credible polls) still show support majority for the treaty.

    They will keep chanting that the government are scaremongering, without even stopping to consider that the government and economic experts might genuinely be afraid of the consequences of instability in the union for each member state and each citizen living there.

    When you have an uneducated, uncivilised (their protests have shown this), group of people who want chaos and anarchy for the sake of anarchy and chaos, you cannot reason with them, no matter what you have in your hands to reason with.

    As such, expect more bull**** from Barrett, Adams and Higgins in the coming weeks. I don't know whether they genuinely believe that huge instability, us not paying back our debts and taking an additional 15 billion off the "rich" here per year would actually work out well, because everyone with half a brain knows it wouldn't, however they and their masses are sure to be both vocal and deflective of logic in the coming weeks and as such, I would simply advise you to not bother with them.

    Bit of a rant but truth be told I'm absolutely sick of seeing this socialist **** recently. Those voting for it honestly deserve the hell they would drag the country into, yet we have to stick it out and fight against it because we've to live here too. Grumble grumble grumble :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭meglome


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Yes side tactics:
    1: Try to scare the bejaysus out of people

    Haven't seen that to be honest. What did I miss?
    Strangely I've seen some very truthful statements from the government, and loads of people then complaining about that, all the while complaining that the government never tells them the truth. Makes no sense but there you go.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    2: Biased weasel words (eg, calling it the 'stability' treaty instead of the fiscal treaty)

    Em what would you expect them to call it? They are after all looking for stability. I can't help but feel if they called it the 'We will punch you in the face' treaty you wouldn't quite be happy.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    3: The usual irrelevant sh!te - yes for jobs, yes for Europe, etc

    Sure usual slogans, not a fan myself. Though I'm not sure how you can sex this treaty up to 'sell' it. Especially when the No side can say whatever it is they like about it... and by golly they do. Large numbers complain about these treaties being too complicated and the same ones are complaining this one is being dumbed down too much. Makes no sense.

    And you know what the really ironic thing about 'Yes for Jobs' is... I saw it on a few government posters and heard it said a by a few Yes supporters but I'd easily say 95% of the times I've heard it was from No voters. I still hear it almost daily now from No voters. Course those same no voters always have a very bad memory about all the lies the No side told. Make of that what you will.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    4: On the above point, acting as if voting for or against this treaty = voting for or against our very membership of the EU

    Has someone in the government said that? Though a default might lead to just that.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    5: Guilt tripping the electorate over the state of the nation

    Did they? Though the electorate should feel bad about the state we're in. We repeatedly voted for it, then didn't like what we got.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    6: Claim that the no side are communists, and that somehow being a protestor or activist automatically means that (a) you're unemployed, (b) lazy, (c) don't care about the issue at hand and (d) have no right to a voice or an opinion,

    Haven't seen most of that myself. Though the hard left are out in force supporting a no vote. Polls on the The Journal show a comfortable no vote. Yet they also show a large majority who haven't read this treaty and don't intend to. Go figure.

    Journal Poll (70% either haven't read the treaty or don't plan to read it)
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    7: Claim that by voting no, you are effectively endorsing others who advocate a no (guilt by association, e.g "Sure why don't you just vote for the shinners in the next election then")

    Now I have seen this. But given some of the... em... nutters... on the hard left I suppose it a relevant point. It would genuinely make me think if I were on the same side as these people.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Need I go on?

    Sure go for it.


Advertisement
Advertisement