The Lisbon vote

television said:
Absolutly aggreed but the private sector will not achieve this because of a very siomple ecomomic priciple.

Minimise costs/Maximise profit.
Click to expand...

This is codswallop. Any business run on the sole principle of Minimise costs/Maximise profit will survive for only a very short time. A business will only be successful in the medium to long term if it capable of generating profits through sustainable business activities, and in compliance with the rules and norms of civilised society. We have moved on quite a bit from the days of the robber barons.
 
Purple said:
As were many in the main steam of Irish politics.
I was in favour of the invasion but not the balls-up they made of it.
I am in favour of allowing US planes refuel in Shannon.
Click to expand...

So it can be acceptable to be on the side of the loonies? In this case much of 'old' Europe disagreed with Iraq though - France, Germany etc.

And I don't believe all of the mainstream parties were in favour (e.g. Labour, Greens) - I know you didn't say all before you point that out.

It seems to me that this argument is only trotted out when it suits, and as such it is one I dismissed from day one.

My willingness to be on the same side as the loonies should be seen as an indication of the strength of my convictions, not be used to demean me.
 
ubiquitous said:
This is codswallop. Any business run on the sole principle of Minimise costs/Maximise profit will survive for only a very short time. A business will only be successful in the medium to long term if it capable of generating profits through sustainable business activities, and in compliance with the rules and norms of civilised society. We have moved on quite a bit from the days of the robber barons.
Click to expand...
Very well put.
 
rmelly said:
For all the posters that use not siding with the loonies as a reason to vote Yes, can I take it that you are/were for example in favour of the Iraq liberation, use of Shannon as a stop over by US military etc?

These are the same groups vehemently opposed to both.
Click to expand...


yes I was in support of the liberation of Iraq and the removal of one of the most evil dictators of the last few hundred years. Yes, I have no issue with the Shannon stopover. Do I believe the US cocked it all up, most definately, but that is no reason not to support their aim in the first place
 
That French fellow really spelt it out in a way that BC etc. dare not. We will be punished if we say No a second time. Unfortunately it is debatable whether this foreign intervention will be a help or a hindrance to the Yes campaign.

Yes, we are being bullied into this.

Yes, we are being asked to vote a dimunition of our influence.

Yes, we would prefer if things could continue as they are.

But there's the rub, and we needed a French guy to warn us, we cannot preserve the cozy status quo forever.

The RC very misleadingly suggested that the continuation of the status quo is an option and Rupert Murdoch in yesterday's Sunday Times mischeivously reminded us of that RC statement.

Looney left, unrepentent terrorists, naive idealists, now add the worst of all, Rupert Murdock and the British fascists and to repeat the Irish Times editorial, how can we possibly be toying with the suicidal madness of a No vote.
 
Harchibald said:
Looney left, unrepentent terrorists, naive idealists, now add the worst of all, Rupert Murdock and the British fascists
Click to expand...

I think it is wrong to dismiss a significant proportion of the electorate in this way, regardless of whether their votes amount to 30% or 50+% of the total.
 
This is codswallop. Any business run on the sole principle of Minimise costs/Maximise profit will survive for only a very short time. A business will only be successful in the medium to long term if it capable of generating profits through sustainable business activities, and in compliance with the rules and norms of civilised society.
Click to expand...

The primary objective of business activity is to maximise profit. Obviously within the rule of law. although I can lsit out hundereds of example where businesses frequently break laws in the pursuit of profits. Dont be nieve. Look at how businesses have acted in the underdeveloped world where your so called rules of civilised society are ignord and people exploited.
 
television said:
The primary objective of business activity is to maximise profit. Obviously within the rule of law. although I can lsit out hundereds of example where businesses frequently break laws. Dont be nieve
Click to expand...

As someone who runs a business myself, I find your conclusions to be extremely simplistic. Its a bit like saying that a typical employee and/or civil servant's primary motivation is to collect their paycheque at the end of every week and that they don't give a damn whether they do any work in return. Anyone who would argue this would be rightfully laughed at. The same applies to those who are similarly prejudiced against business and enterprise, or indeed government.
 
television said:
The primary objective of business activity is to maximise profit. Obviously within the rule of law. although I can lsit out hundereds of example where businesses frequently break laws in the pursuit of profits. Dont be nieve. Look at how businesses have acted in the underdeveloped world where your so called rules of civilised society are ignord and people exploited.
Click to expand...

I also run a business and find your comments simplistic and offensive.
The reason that businesses (or more accurately; people) exploit others in underdeveloped countries in that the civil government is weak, corrupt or non-existent (or a combination there of). We live in a democracy where businesses (and the people who run them) are subject to the laws of the land and must operate within the constraints that those laws impose.
Your views on how businesses exploit people in the developing world are simplistic in the extreme. If you wish to debate that point I would be happy to do so in a different thread.
 
I also run a business and find your comments simplistic and offensive.
Click to expand...

Im sorry that i have pointed out a simple economic principle that business men usually go into business to make a profit. That is offencive to you? Why?

The reason that businesses (or more accurately; people) exploit others in underdeveloped countries in that the civil government is weak, corrupt or non-existent (or a combination there of).
Click to expand...

and you call my argument simplictic??????

The resaons why businesses or people who run businesses exploit the developing world are complexed and far more complexed than your explaination above and yes deserves a seperate Post.
 
rmelly said:
So it can be acceptable to be on the side of the loonies? In this case much of 'old' Europe disagreed with Iraq though - France, Germany etc.

And I don't believe all of the mainstream parties were in favour (e.g. Labour, Greens) - I know you didn't say all before you point that out.

It seems to me that this argument is only trotted out when it suits, and as such it is one I dismissed from day one.

My willingness to be on the same side as the loonies should be seen as an indication of the strength of my convictions, not be used to demean me.
Click to expand...

The argument really only holds where you have to make a decision on the basis of trust. If you don't have the time to absorb all the details of the treaty or you simply don't understand everything in it then it has to come down to who you trust most. I think even where you have satisfied yourself you understand the treaty, you still have to attach some significance to the opinion of others. It can't be discounted entirely.

The parties of the political mainstream are united in calling for a Yes vote. It's very easy to be cynical about our elected leaders and god knows we have good reason to be, but at the end of the day we elected them. This is not a Mugabe style state where we cannot rid ourselves of them and neither are the other 26 states that will ratify this treaty. I didn't vote for this government and I can't say I'm inspired by the opposition parties either, but I'll trust them and value their advice any day over the crazy coalition of groups from the far left and right that are telling us to vote down this treaty.
 
Sinn Fein and Libertas were banging on about a "better deal" again today. It sounds so reasonable and persuasive when you hear it first but when you actually stop and think about what they're really saying, it quickly becomes apparent just how nonsensical their position is.

It is patently absurd to argue on the one hand that the Irish government have been conned into signing up for a disastrous deal for Ireland and then proclaim your confidence in the very same people to negotiate a better deal with the other 26 countries in the aftermath of a No vote. Yet this is exactly what Declan Ganley and Mary Lou McDonald have said in recent statements. If our elected representatives have sold us down the river as the No side seem to think then clearly these same people are not fit to face Europe again, not fit to negotiate on anything. And to send them, humiliated by a crushing vote of no confidence from their own people to face 26 other countries would be a futile exercise indeed. The only logic of this position is to send Sinn Fein representatives to do the job as they clearly know what they're talking about. Or perhaps Mr Ganley, but then he hasn't been elected by anyone. Perhaps Joe Higgins but then he's no longer in the Dail. It's a difficult one isn't it? Maybe we could have another referendum to decide exactly who would do it. We might even send a delegation including representatives from all the No groups. In the interests of transparency and to ensure they too wouldn't be tempted to sell us out with offers of big jobs or financial inducements, such negotiations should occur in public. Such an arrangement would at the very least provide some entertainment value, more fun I'm sure than even watching Dustin in Belgrade. Yes a "better deal" indeed. I'm sure that's just what we'd get alright :rolleyes:
 
The no side speak with a forked tongue. Renegotiating the Lisbon treaty which at the time was regarded as a triumph for Irish diplomacy is mad. We'd be guaranteed to come out of the aftermath of a no vote with a worse deal.

The farmers/IFA played it right. They got a real concession from the government on a commitment to veto an unfavorable WTO deal. The government will be able to say to the rest of Europe that they had to commit to the veto to secure the yes vote.
 
television said:
Because it is a fact there is evidence. i have done some research on Education policy and education in Europe and it is factual that business is becoming more and more influencial in this sector and it is my view that education is suffering and will continue to suffer because of this.
Click to expand...

television said:
I am arguign that big business has a huge influence on europen social policy today. And broadly speaking these groups like the European Round table of Indulstrialists have a neo liberal economic outlook.
Click to expand...

This is a simplistic, nonsensical outlook. To argue that every business owner is a crazed right-wing neo-con is about as sensible as maintaining every public sector worker is a communist. George Soros, for example, is a billionaire financier and speculator whose ideologies are too left-wing for my tastes.

Seriously people, we're arguing about France having some crazed secret libertarian agenda. France. The country where people rioted when the government tried to introduce laws that allowed workers under the age of 26 to be dismissed without reason in their first two years of employment.
 
that every business owner is a crazed right-wing neo-con
Click to expand...

I dont think I have actually argued that? And if you want to create false arguments on my behalf and then break them down good luck to you. But it really means nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top