Atheist Ireland Forum

I get the attitude of some of the no side. I understand that people are pissed off. I can't abide the Shinners and their hypocritical populist bullshit, but I do get that a lot of people are annoyed. However, Irishmason, you still haven't provided an alternative. What happens if we vote no and need a 2nd bailout and can't get it? What then?

And you want to discuss the austerity treaty? Perhaps you should go howl at the moon.

So does it really matter which way we vote then?

I don't want to start an argument here but this has already been posted in another thread, entitled "Fiscal treaty".

This is not good forum practice and only serves to degrade the overall discussion. I think this thread should be removed or at the very least diverted back to the other.

I have respect for the no side and I get that people are pissed off. What I don't like is SF exploiting this which they are doing. They come up with policies they know will be popular amongst thier support and beyond but they know they have no short term hope of gaining power and so come up with populist policies they know they won't have to implement.

They're gaining in popularity as a result and may well be in a position to form a coalition in the next government, assuming of course someone would agree to form a government with them, which I don't think will happen in the short term. But if it did, watch how quickly their populist policies would change. We'd be hearing an awful lot more of 'we are where we are' from them than 'introduce a wealth tax and vote no to everything'.

That logic worked for the Lisbon treaty because the treaty couldn't go through without a unanimous vote. Ireland had the power to prevent it from happening by voting no the second time.

However, that isn't the case with this treaty. There will be no second vote and there will be no "better deal". If Ireland votes no, Ireland will simplly be left out.

Ireland has a good reputation abroad with the way the country is dealing with the debts, vote no and and that is gone. You might say; so what? but it means that, beside that you can forget a second bail out if needed, investors will think twice to invest.

Other then that I am totally indifferent because I am not allowed to vote for Ireland anyway.

Many people in Ireland only think short term and SF is exploiting that.

No change there then

I am only speaking for the North West though were men are men and sheep are careful.

Turns out I am allowed to vote after all!!

I like Tulip a lot, but I would like to be excluded from his idea that 'Many people in Ireland only think short term and Sinn Fein is exploiting that'.

I was thinking long term when I voted against the Single European Act.
I was thinking long term when I voted against the Maastricht treaty: it made no sense to me that we should have one European economy, when there were there were actually 15 completely different economies operating at the time, with no sense of how they could be made one.
I was thinking long term when I voted against the Nice treaty, twice.
I was thinking long term when I voted against the Lisbon treaty - twice. I did not believe the false promises of 'jobs' and prosperity if we voted 'yes' to a cynical attempt at introducing a constitution, which had already been rejected, by stealth.

Strangely, not one of the citizens who voted 'yes' to these treaties has thought to apologize to me for having helped to bring this country to the current sorry state. It is not pleasant to have my previous decisions vindicated by the failure of European politicians and ideologues. Possibly some are idealists, but many are ideologues, believing their own rhetoric, rather than reality.

I think of my young son.
I think of the human race as a whole.
I think of a protectionist trading block which helps to keep the third world in penury.
I think long term.

Conor Kelly.

Bravo Canasta!
My thoughts exactly - including the bit about liking Tulip.

That's all well and good. But who's to say that we wouldn't still be in this sorry state if we had voted no all the way along? I don't know the answer, I'm just throwing it out there. I too thought the 'Yes to jobs' mantra was a dodgy message. But I also question the no side now asking where these jobs are having voted yes. Who's to say where we'd be now had we voted no. Would more jobs have been lost had we voted no the last time? Would more multi-nationals have moved elsewhere had we done so? Again, I don't know, but it's a worthy question.

The credit crunch collapse of 2008 was a world wide disaster, which started with the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage catastrophe in the US.

A portion of the surge in support for SF is due to their populist policies which they know will gain them support and they know they have no opportunity to implement. I've said it before, watch how quickly SF policies would change if they formed a coalition.

I find the Shinners very useful in situtations like this. There's a big treaty document which I have neither the time nor legal nor financial expertise to read and evaluate. They presumably have bugger all else for doing now that they've stopped bombing children and shooting pizza delivery guys, so they can go off and read it and make some shit up and then take a stance on it. Then I can take the opposing view, secure in the knowledge that I am most likely making the right decision.

Something similar for me but in reverse order.

When I see the financial oligarchy and their political hirelings lining up to tell me to do something, I do the opposite. I feel more comfortable being on the side of those struggling with mortgages, bank loans, the unemployed, the underdogs.

The triparty axis of Fg-Ff-Lb and the people they serve are responsible for dividing society into two opposing camps. I hope they and their supporters will remember this after the next general election when their world turns upside down.