Have the no campaign no scruples or standards?

meglome · 28-05-2012 03:31PM #1

Walking around town today I decided I'd check out all the posters. I think pretty much all of the posters are poor for different reasons. As I've said previously I'm no fan of how our referenda are run. The government posters are aspirational slogans which are pretty rubbish and fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things, though at least they are positive. Honestly though I've come to the conclusion that the no campaign have no scruples or standards whatsoever and will do anything to get what they believe they want. Their posters are often scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Apologies for the size of all of this.

2012-05-28%2013.02.18.jpg

Bankers treaty? what? No cuts and charges when we're borrowing one third of all government spending?
Does this say No for Jobs?

2012-05-28%2013.04.34.jpg

How do they figure this?

2012-05-28%2013.05.38.jpg

I for one can't wait to go back to the 'good ole days' when we were poor, miserable and abused by priests.

2012-05-28%2013.06.21.jpg

Where does the money come from? And what the hell have water and household charges got to do with this treaty? They're not mentioned in it.

2012-05-28%2014.11.40.jpg

I seem to recall anyone from outside Ireland who pushed for a Yes vote to Lisbon was interfering and bullying. Must be okay when the no camp ship them in.

2012-05-28%2014.14.58.jpg

Emm the last government already bailed out the banks. Time machine anyone?

2012-05-28%2014.16.45.jpg

You mean the fiscal limits which are already law here.

2012-05-28%2014.20.47.jpg

Stopping austerity if we vote no eh? I'd really like to see them explaining why there was still austerity if we voted no. Tell some more lies I'm sure.

2012-05-28%2014.24.19.jpg

Really? How?

2012-05-28%2015.36.39.jpg

Completely lie. (Which someone has written on it in marker)

2012-05-28%2015.37.21.jpg

Good poster, terrible shíte on it.

2012-05-28%2015.37.50.jpg

Is there a connection?

2012-05-28%2017.22.09.jpg

I wonder what lie they'd tell when there was still austerity after a no vote?

2012-05-28%2017.38.48.jpg

A building sized banner from the Mandate trade Union. But not scaremongering as it's the no side doing it.

2012-05-28%2017.19.59.jpg

So big and pink (Mick Wallace pink that is) and bullshítty. Why lie on a poster when you can lie on a whole building.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-29%2012.15.35.jpg
No to upward only rents, no to political liars, no to fiscal compact - building sized on Grafton Street. I think our friend here doesn't do irony, calling for a no to political liars while comparing that and upward only rents to the fiscal treaty. A fiscal treaty which has nothing whatsoever to do with either of those things, so proving him to be a political liar.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-29%2015.20.15.jpg
Republican Sinn Fein - Fight the powa

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-28%2017.20.59.jpg
As it's so cute and small and pink.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-28%2017.22.42.jpg
Oooohhhh scary

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43554707/no_posters/2012-05-28%2014.21.19.jpg
Fiscal prudence... those bastards.

christmas2012 · 28-05-2012 03:34PM

Apparently it will strengthen laws they want to put in place so ya it will write in the household and water charges..
But im not sure what the no side have to offer,can they get access to low interest money if we need to borrow again?
They dont seem to have an alternative all they have said is vote no etc..But havent come up with any solutions of how do deal with the crisis were in..

seamus · 28-05-2012 03:36PM

It would be nice if these various groups would just be honest and say, "If you hate the EU like we do, then vote No".

They might even get a few more votes that way. As it is, they know that the Irish are still very pro-Europe so they need to invent lies in order to make people think that voting No is a good idea.

I particularly like the ULA one that says "Demand Jobs". I don't think two words have ever quite captured the socalist fallacy so eloquently and succinctly.

oscarBravo · 28-05-2012 03:44PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

Apparently it will strengthen laws they want to put in place so ya it will write in the household and water charges..

There is no mention, in either the treaty or the proposed amendment, of household or water charges.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-05-2012 03:50PM

I love the exasperation that comes across in the simple statement 'This is incorrect information!', it really speaks to me, I don't know how many times I incredulously utter that exact phrase every time I delve into cesspit of 'argument' that constitutes this treaty campaign!

It's just a beautiful response to the lies from an obviously honest, rational and logical mind. Whoever it was is baffled, because of their own inherent honesty, that anyone would do something like placing 'incorrect information' in the public sphere.

The cursive script and double underline are just the icing on the cake!

GarIT · 28-05-2012 03:51PM

I'd vote no to anything that gives Europe more power. I don't think the EU should be anything more than an agreement of free trade. Once again I'll admit that the no campaign is terrible, It always has been.

The Waltzing Consumer · 28-05-2012 03:54PM

Not completely related to posters but I do find the standards, or scruples as you say

, of some of the No posters very low particularly online.

Example, I saw this article on thejournal.ie and whilst it is still new and posted a very short time, it is indicative of comment sections in most websites.

http://www.thejournal.ie/a-yes-vote-likely-says-poll-of-small-firm-owners-465917-May2012/

So pretty much, it was survey by the small firms association, a group representing about 8000 small businesses in Ireland, about the Fiscal treaty.

The main findings out of the 2500 surveys distributed and 872 returned were:
83% thought it would be a Yes vote
97% thought a yes vote is good for certainty regarding the financing of the state
96% thought a yes vote will require future Governments to behave responsibly in fiscal planning.
95% thought a yes vote would give confidence to invest and create jobs and will help stablise the Euro and EU.
99% thought that along with this treaty, it was important for a separate growth agenda to be included (Gov have acknowledged this many times)

So what are the comments and probably the future comments?
They believe these are scare tactics, one poster does not believe these surveys are credible and is IBEC propaganda and another ignores the SFA respondents with some lame joke about the others not being able to pay their bills.

Now, all you have to ask, if the surveys were all in favour of a No vote, would they be so skeptical? No, they would be printing this stuff on their leaflets. Unfortunately, the small businesses, a backbone of the domestic economy who SF have been yapping on about, are clearly and overwhelmingly in favour of this treaty. But there seems to be no standards for a lot of the No campaigners when faced with a lot of these facts. They have a lot of unions supporting No, fair enough, and they will use surveys, polls when it is in their favour, fair enough, but when it is not going their way, they have zero standards.

Max Power1 · 28-05-2012 03:55PM

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

meglome · 28-05-2012 03:58PM

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

No it fluppin doesn't.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, sorry if this has been done before. I just found an old file on my computer from the time of the last Lison treaty where I'd listed some of the lies that were told by the no campaign. It had plain old lies like the one about the EU having taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters but the ones I'm interested in here are things that they said would happen if we voted yes, i.e. they were saying that voting yes would allow something to happen where voting no would prevent it.

This is the list:
The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84

Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack

We would lose our neutrality

It would create a European superstate

Abortion would be made legal

Gay marriage would be made legal

Euthanasia would be made legal

The death penalty would be made legal

The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on

Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus

During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead

Turkey would be allowed to join the EU

The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)

We would lose the right to referendums

Our constitution would be null and void

Healthcare and education would be privatised

We would be forced to increase military spending

The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics

We would lose our veto in all areas

A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people

Tony Blair would become the EU president

...

And as I've said to you multiple times our exports are booming.

The Waltzing Consumer · 28-05-2012 04:00PM

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

But jobs are created. Just look at today, amazon and another web firm announced over 100 jobs. No one will take away from the horrendous unemployment, but jobs are created and the focus should be to reduce unemployment and improve skills. You can't do this overnight, IT companies are killing for skilled workers, but it takes time for hundreds of thousands of people to be retrained. It's a slow road.

I think the posters are crap with those type of slogans, but I know the difference between "vote yes to jobs" meaning let us create an infrastructure and environment attractive to create employment, or "vote yes for jobs" to magically appear from nothing.

seamus · 28-05-2012 04:02PM

How does it pale in comparison?

Surely the level of deceit is what you should be measuring it on? "Yes to Jobs" was certainly a vague and annoyingly incomplete message, but with a reasonable message behidn it that support for the EU is key to bringing in job to the country.

It's in no way and outright lie like many of the above posters. At this stage I see half the posters with a big Angela Merkel on them. They're only a step away from photoshopping a small moustache and an S.S. uniform onto her. How is that less reprehensible than a simple statement about the likely benefits to Ireland of a "Yes" vote.

And before you say, "Where are the jobs", in case you haven't noticed, there are thousands of vacancies in this country that have been created over the last twelve months which can't be filled. There are your jobs.

GarIT · 28-05-2012 04:40PM

You can't say the Lisbon treaty did or did not create jobs. We don't have an Ireland today after a no vote to compare with. Both sides are wrong. Nobody knows if Lisbon had any influence on jobs.

One thing that baffles me is why a poll matters? I can't understand why someone would vote yes because the majority are. I estimate that the number of people in the country that have read and understood the Fiscal treaty completely are in the hundreds possibly low thousands. The "vote yes because 2 million other people (who also don't know what's going on) are" idea, doesn't sit well with me. I have never voted with the majority. I either understand what I'm voting on or I don't vote.

Just on the theme of propaganda and lies until recently it was on the Fine Gael website that "all of the other EU countries have agreed to the treaty". That is very misleading. In reality all of the leaders representing the other countries agreed to ask the people of their country to vote, no country as a whole had agreed to the treaty at that time.

christmas2012 · 28-05-2012 05:38PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is no mention, in either the treaty or the proposed amendment, of household or water charges.

then why are they stating it in their placards surely they could be done for libel..

Scofflaw · 28-05-2012 05:43PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

then why are they stating it in their placards surely they could be done for libel..

No, they can't be done for libel (nobody is being libeled), and they can't even be done for false advertising (advertising standards don't apply to political claims).

You are free to put up pretty much whatever you think might sway a few votes, even if it's completely false, or even completely impossible. You can claim that the EU will invade Ireland, you can claim that Fine Gael will turn off gravity, or that Merkel will blot out the sun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Waltzing Consumer · 28-05-2012 05:48PM

GarIT wrote: »

Just on the theme of propaganda and lies until recently it was on the Fine Gael website that "all of the other EU countries have agreed to the treaty". That is very misleading. In reality all of the leaders representing the other countries agreed to ask the people of their country to vote, no country as a whole had agreed to the treaty at that time.

Eh, 25 EU states signed off on the Treaty, "agreeing" in other words to the Treaty. The two that did not were the UK and Czech Republic. It will come into effect when 12 or more states ratify it.

Only Ireland has a referendum so I have no idea where you are getting your idea that all the leaders of the other countries are putting the treaty to a referendum.

This is also bizarre for a paragraph giving out about lies.

Greece, Portugal and Slovenia have all ratified it. 6 countries and us are in the process of ratification whilst the remaining countries have not started ratification but have a timetable to.

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/the-stability-treaty-ratification-map---infographic

Is it not a bit silly giving out about lies and propaganda followed by two absolute lies that are so easily found with a quick google search?

Pete_Cavan · 28-05-2012 06:31PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Now, all you have to ask, if the surveys were all in favour of a No vote, would they be so skeptical? No, they would be printing this stuff on their leaflets.

They might take select pieces of information, ignore the conclusions of the authors and generally misquote it to suggest it supports their ideas when, in reality, the opposite is true...

meglome · 28-05-2012 07:00PM

Added 5 new posters to the OP. There are no posters everywhere.

RandomName2 · 28-05-2012 07:16PM

Max Power1 wrote: »

Lads
In all fairness this pales in comparison to the "yes to Jobs yes to Lisbon" Bollox that we were subjected to last time

meglome wrote: »

No it fluppin doesn't.

In my opinion the No side has learned well from the Yes side from Lisbon: make one big lie that has some vague (incorrect) connection to the treaty, have all the parties and groups on your side hammer home the same message, never coherently argue the point, use all the political strength you can muster (particularly European) to back your argument, and leave yourself with enough wriggle room to be able to back away from your crap after the referendum.

Imo the Yes side set the standard; and are not edifying themselves this time round with their fictitious promises of investment.

The Yes side during Lisbon realised that what people really worried about at the time was losing their jobs and not getting employment. The No side realise this time round that what people are really worried about is high taxes. Go figure.

RandomName2 · 28-05-2012 07:20PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

(advertising standards don't apply to political claims).

... perhaps they should

evercloserunion · 28-05-2012 07:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

... perhaps they should

Honestly, I think that EU treaties would pass with much greater ease if standards were enforced in referendum campaigns.

The Waltzing Consumer · 28-05-2012 07:36PM

evercloserunion wrote: »

Honestly, I think that EU treaties would pass with much greater ease if standards were enforced in referendum campaigns.

Same with tv debates.

I hate how, for example, the yes side said we have no veto on the ESM, the No side said we do have a veto. Now the referendum commission said we don't and the language of the treaty says we don't, but for some bizarre reason, in debates, the moderator will treat both arguments as if they were equal. Why can't a moderator say for any fact that is established "No you are wrong". Along with advertising, debate moderators should be firm with facts but allow sides to argue their points.

leeroybrown · 28-05-2012 07:37PM

I was undecided about whether Yes / No was really the best position for Ireland in the long run but even before I analysed the facts the No campaign had swung me completely towards Yes with their campaign. Pretty much everything I've heard from a No campaigner's mouth has been either completely untrue or a deliberately misused fact. Plenty more people I know have a similar view of the campaign. Congrats guys...

Einhard · 28-05-2012 07:43PM

I think the No campaign is indicative of the immaturity and irresponsibility of a large section of the Irish electorate. Some people are voting no on grounds that I can respect, if not agree- for example, GarIT's decision to vote not because he wants a slimmed down, less political EU. However, the majority of those who intend to vote No that I have spoken to are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the Treaty. One quite educated friend announced the other night that he was voting No as a slap in the face to the current government. He hadn't read the Treaty, ddidn't particulary know what it was about, and yet was intending to take a position on it.

The mind boggles.

And I think this is indicative of what's so wrong with the Irish electorate. Very few people actually take politics seriously. It's a game to be played. The problem however, is that it's a game that we play incredibly poorly. Most of the elctorate are entirely unsophisticated when it comes to politics, and making rationale, societal decsions. Thus, FF buys elections with promises of financial largesse, even though it's clear that it cannot be sustained; thus, in the aftermath of Lisbon I, polls showed that many who voted No didn't actually understand the treaty; thus people complain that they haven't been spoonfed information on treaties and referenda even though a huge amount of information exists online and elsewhere...

I could go on and on but it's depressing. Despite everything, nothing has changed. As an electorate, we're just too damn stupid in general to act in a responsible manner. We're still only too willing to run to the nearest political snakeoil-selling huckster for some ephermeral comfort, and damn the conserquences bulding up on the horizon. I thought we'd have learned a lesson after the recession and the failures of FF and others, but I was wrong. And that's what makes it doubly depressing. Indeed, that's why I wouldn't particularly care if we transferred our entire political sovereignty to Berlin in the morn- we've shown again and again that we can't handle grown up political responsibility.

later12 · 28-05-2012 07:43PM

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

oscarBravo · 28-05-2012 07:47PM

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

I haven't seen any posters promising jobs and investment on June 1st.

meglome · 28-05-2012 07:49PM

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

As I said in the OP rubbish slogans are one (unwelcome) thing but downright lies are far worse. And they are far more insidious as they seek to corrupt our political process, all the while complaining that the process is corrupt. The whole campaign is a disgrace.

later12 · 28-05-2012 07:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't seen any posters promising jobs and investment on June 1st.

What?

But a Yes vote is a vote for investment. And employment. Well that's what the signs say. I can't imagine somebody would lie on a campaign sign I mean the Yes side have standards and scruples.

Einhard · 28-05-2012 07:51PM

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

I, for one, think you're better than that.

The Waltzing Consumer · 28-05-2012 07:52PM

later12 wrote: »

I for one am v. excited about all of the jobs and investment that are going to start rolling in on June 1st. In fact I can hardly contain myself.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0221/paypal.html
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/item/27279-ibm-to-create-several-hundr
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1024410.shtml
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/50-new-high-grade-technology-jobs-announced-for-limerick-465661-May2012/
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/irish-shopping-website-creates-40-new-jobs-in-dublin-465600-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/140-jobs-to-be-created-by-seafood-companies-462906-May2012/
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/massive-investment-planned-for-intels-leixlip-plant-461845-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/38-per-cent-of-jobbridge-interns-go-into-full-time-jobs-460909-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/70-jobs-to-be-created-in-dublin-by-gift-voucher-company-460476-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/nama-to-invest-e2-billion-in-unfinished-developments-460470-May2012/
http://www.thejournal.ie/new-springboard-courses-to-offer-over-6000-education-places-458143-May2012/

I got tired after two pages of searching, but it is certainly good news that in two pages of searches, so many announcements can be seen. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the Government should stop these companies, investments, schemes?

oscarBravo · 28-05-2012 07:53PM

later12 wrote: »

What?

But a Yes vote is a vote for investment. And employment. Well that's what the signs say. I can't imagine somebody would lie on a campaign sign I mean the Yes side have standards and scruples.

Is it your considered opinion that there can be no possible difference in outcome between a 'yes' and a 'no' vote on the climate for jobs and investment in this country?

In other words, do you firmly believe that there is no conceivable way in which either outcome could make any difference whatsoever on the investment decisions of businesses?

later12 · 28-05-2012 07:56PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I got tired after two pages of searching, but it is certainly good news that in two pages of searches, so many announcements can be seen. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the Government should stop these companies, investments, schemes?

Given how the Stability & Roses Treaty has yet to be ratified, I'm not really seeing the link between ratification and jobs.

These corporations have decided to expand or create investment in Ireland prior to the Treaty. If there is a serious link between investment and the Treaty, we would expect to see them holding off until the outcome.

But I'm sure I'll be proved wrong. Roll on Stability.

Have the no campaign no scruples or standards?

Comments