Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"We voted Yes to Lisbon, now where are the jobs Fianna Fail?"

  • 23-06-2010 1:17pm
    #1
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭


    I was in town the other day and I seen a poster aimed at Fianna Fail and although I can't remember the exact slogan, it went along the lines of "We voted Yes to Lisbon, now where are the jobs Fianna Fail?"

    I think it's true that a lot of poeple voted Yes to Lisbon the second time around because of their fears over the economy. I don't think voting Yes has made much of a difference to our economy though and I think if Ireland had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now.

    I don't want to start a debate on the pros or cons of the Lisbon Treaty itself. I just wanted to know what do FF and other groups that called for a yes vote on the basis of jobs say about this issue now or is it a forgotten issue for them now the treaty has been passed by the Irish people.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Ah the irony... we voted yes to Lisbon on the basis on jobs and closer ties to Europe but the only thing we got was the ECB breathing down our necks and in all intents and purposes dictating Irish budgets from now until...well god knows when.

    Also I still maintain that it was the ONLY time that the voters had an opportunity to get rid of FF from government. 2012 seems a long way off now doesnt it.

    Hmmm, Lisbon Vs Nama.... surely Lisbon isn't worth Nama FFS no matter how much you love Europe.


  • #3
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Being at the "heart" of the EU is one of the selling points Ireland has to offer FDI. Voting No to Lisbon could have left us out in the cold and lost us that selling point at a time when FDI is hugely important to us as our domestic "industry" (i.e. selling houses to each other) has died it's inevitable death.


  • #4
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    Saw the same poster, fairly sure it was put up by the socialist party.


    Better off voting Yes to Lisbon in the long term, as regards overseas investment into Ireland.

    If there had been a No vote like the extreme left and extreme right had campaigned for, I wonder what the poster would read?


  • #5
    PomBear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Fine Gael and Labour also spouted that garbage knowing full well what they were doing


  • #6
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You are right but now the EU are going to make sure that Ireland and other nations are going to get it right by by pre-approving their budgets. Otherwise the ECB wont lend us the money.


  • #8
    Coillte_Bhoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,909 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »

    If there had been a No vote like the extreme left and extreme right had campaigned for, I wonder what the poster would read?

    :confused:


  • #9
    BUNK1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 ✭✭✭BUNK1982


    Why do so many people think that the government can click it's fingers and provide jobs??

    It's not that easy and if Ireland had rejected the Lisbon treaty we would certainly be worse off. Things can always get worse!


  • #10
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »
    :confused:

    What I mean is if the vote in the second referendum had been a "No", what kind of posters would be put up around the place?


  • #11
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    BUNK1982 wrote: »
    Why do so many people think that the government can click it's fingers and provide jobs??
    Because they've done it so well in the past?

    That is why we have such a bloated public service isn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    ART6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    Every Irish referendum to do with the EU has always been preceded by the all party statement that voting yes is essential for jobs. The Nice treaty was sold to the people on that claim and for once the political spin turned out to be the truth. It was good for jobs. Polish ones. Romanian ones. All of them in Ireland until the employers found it cheaper to move their operations to those countries.

    Having said that, given the state of our economy we would be losing jobs at a frightening rate irrespective of Lisbon. The loss, and the absence of new jobs, was due to fiscal irresponsibility and was not the fault of the EU or Lisbon. The only contributing EU factor was our membership of the EMU which deprived us of any control over our currency and interest rates, and given the displayed competence of the government even that might not have been a bad thing in retrospect.

    Whatever, we are in the EMU and tied into the Euro, and we would be in even deeper s**t without it. The failure of the promised jobs to materialise is the least of our current problems.


  • #13
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #14
    BUNK1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 ✭✭✭BUNK1982


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Because they've done it so well in the past?

    That is why we have such a bloated public service isn't it?

    Not to mention an almost 3rd world planning process that means there are enough housing units to last for the next 20 - 30 years so that's put paid to our construction industry.


  • #15
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »
    Saw the same poster, fairly sure it was put up by the socialist party.


    Better off voting Yes to Lisbon in the long term, as regards overseas investment into Ireland.

    If there had been a No vote like the extreme left and extreme right had campaigned for, I wonder what the poster would read?

    Ireland doesn't do long term, but if it did it would be the best in the world.


  • #16
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Ireland doesn't do long term, but if it did it would be the best in the world.

    so if the second referendum was a no, what do you think would happen? Obviously the govt would do fuck all, but how would businesses/investors react?


  • #17
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »
    so if the second referendum was a no, what do you think would happen? Obviously the govt would do fuck all, but how would businesses/investors react?

    I mean that being part of a cohesive trading block is good for ireland in the long run but opponents are being petty by pointing out that no jobs have materialised out of thin air overnight.
    And if Ireland did do long term thinking the current situation might have been foreseen past the bubble.


  • #18
    Nate--IRL--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,229 ✭✭✭Nate--IRL--


    6ezw5e.jpg

    2mq41eq.jpg

    Nate


  • #19
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    fontanalis wrote: »
    I mean that being part of a cohesive trading block is good for ireland in the long run but opponents are being petty by pointing out that no jobs have materialised out of thin air overnight.
    And if Ireland did do long term thinking the current situation might have been foreseen past the bubble.

    I agree, but the powers that be didnt think beyond the bubble and had their heads in the sand. Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.


  • #20
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Where are the abortions, the federal republic and the new minimum wage?


  • #21
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Typical idiocy that is on display in Ireland. Vote FF year after year. Vote "No" in a referendum, ah sure we must have got it wrong, lets vote on it again! Also long as the public flip flops on issues like that they have no credibility.
    We were fed a load of lies.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    ednwireland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,455 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    Nate--IRL-- wrote: »
    6ezw5e.jpg

    Nate

    bubbles, oh the irony

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • #23
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    and cardboard bubbles at that!


  • #24
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    jank wrote: »
    You are right but now the EU are going to make sure that Ireland and other nations are going to get it right by by pre-approving their budgets. Otherwise the ECB wont lend us the money.

    Oh no, we'll have to get our budget right for a change :P

    Tis a good thing.

    ECB's money, ECB's rules. Don't like it leave the currency. Of course we won't do that as it massively benefits us and I'm glad of that as our government has no interest in creating a good budget, only staying in power concerns them.


  • #25
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,906 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Here's jobs that were created in the last few days:
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0618/biotrin.html
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0621/jobs.html

    There's a few examples like this every week.

    These are multinational companies, that can set up anywhere. They set up here due to our close ties to Europe, speaking English and being in the Euro, and a low tax rate (other countries also offer this).

    Now, can all these jobs be directly attributed to the yes vote on Lisbon? Maybe not, but at least some of them would be.

    The company I work for is undergoing a lot of expansion, which I doubt would be occurring if we marginalised ourselves from Europe.

    The EU is funding €500m for Metro North, which will pay for a lot of salaries.

    We're most definitely in a lot less sh*t due to saying Yes, then if we had said No. Have any predictions on the No side came true? Any abortions? Conscription? Has the state ceased to exist?


  • #26
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,794 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Theres been a couple of threads like this one flying around in the past few weeks linked to the Lisbon Treaty. Exactly as I predicted although a few years early..........

    I really would love it if there was something similiar to boards.ie in the 70's when the first EU vote was held in this country.
    We could look back on what the no side were saying about the EU and how bad it was for us. The same people continue to be very anti EU and I dont think a single thing has changed in their attitudes towards the EU since then. Despite all the good joining the EU has done for us. Of curse there has been some bad however in the majority it has been good.
    While this hasnt been a vote for or against the EU, there were those who wanted to turn it such a way, on both sides.

    Anyway, the no side will no doubt link anything "negative" that happens this country with the yes vote, while the yes side will anything positve that happens this country with the yes vote.
    The reality, the treaty hasnt been ratified fully as of it and COULD still fall down, it will no doubt take years to see the results of this, but I think the whole thing, for the common man on the street was much ado about feck all really.
    Theres far more sinister things happening in boardrooms and meetings that the public have no vote on, no idea of and which will have a far bigger impact on them. NAMA, bank bailouts, golden circles, government/Union/Ibec talks etc.....
    From here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055700210&page=2



    I'm not standing up for FF just pointing out a few realities....
    Also, OP, do you think FF and the pro Lisboners have stopped trying to create jobs?
    Would it be possible to link any job creation of the past few months with Lisbon (there has been job creation)


  • #27
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    would it be fair to say that as an opponent of big goverment and all that entails , you would have been against ireland joining the single european currency in the 1st place


  • #28
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    astrofool wrote: »
    Here's jobs that were created in the last few days:
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0618/biotrin.html
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0621/jobs.html

    There's a few examples like this every week.

    These are multinational companies, that can set up anywhere. They set up here due to our close ties to Europe, speaking English and being in the Euro, and a low tax rate (other countries also offer this).

    Now, can all these jobs be directly attributed to the yes vote on Lisbon? Maybe not, but at least some of them would be.

    The company I work for is undergoing a lot of expansion, which I doubt would be occurring if we marginalised ourselves from Europe.

    The EU is funding €500m for Metro North, which will pay for a lot of salaries.

    We're most definitely in a lot less sh*t due to saying Yes, then if we had said No. Have any predictions on the No side came true? Any abortions? Conscription? Has the state ceased to exist?

    As far as the no side are concerned from Lisbon, jobs created don't count less unemployment reaches zero overnight and/or the companies say they wouldn't have created the jobs had we not voted yes to Lisbon explicitly.

    As those scenarios are clearly pie in the sky stuff they continue to spout their nonsense hoping someone is stupid enough to buy it.


  • #29
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I actually agree with this but I find it strange that someone who values libertarianism so much as yourself could be OK with people in Europe essentially dictating economic policy for a sovereign nation like Ireland.


  • #30
    jacaranda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭jacaranda


    PHB wrote: »
    Where are the abortions, the federal republic and the new minimum wage?

    Irish abortions take place in the UK, watch this space to see the EU amassing more power, (this time using the fate of the Euro as the excuse), and the minimum wage is now seen as a very expensive mistake, responsible for much of our former manufacturing industry leaving Ireland and heading to eastern Europe or China.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,994 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    it will be interesting to see within the next 5-10 years, despite the assurance, if our corporation tax rate is revised upwards.

    was the ability of the EU to oversee our budget a provision of the Lisbon Treaty? if it wasn't, then can anyone really definitely dismiss the possibility that the above could happen?


  • #32
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Who are the EU to decide if governments are irresponsible? Personally if we vote in idiots then they should be in charge, irresponsible or not as we have voted for them. Thats democracy.


  • #33
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Who are the EU to decide if governments are irresponsible? Personally if we vote in idiots then they should be in charge, irresponsible or not as we have voted for them. Thats democracy.

    When we signed up to the stability and growth pact (and the EU in general) we delegated part of our sovereignty. That was a democratic decision that we now need to respect.

    We can't just sign up to agreements and then ignore them.


  • #34
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    This discussion is kinda pointless. In the current case where we voted "yes" and some jobs happen to be created some people will claim it's because of Lisbon Treaty and being "co-operative" with Europe and at the "heart" and blah blah blah.

    If we voted "no" and some jobs happened to be lost, some people would claim "if we'd voted yes" it wouldn't have happened and we've been "marginalised" and blah blah blah.

    A lot of fallacies being thrown around, such as this one:
    　
    astrofool wrote:
    The EU is funding €500m for Metro North, which will pay for a lot of salaries.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon. It was being discussed before then. The EIB will lend the money because they see a possibility of making a return and because private funding has dried up for these sorts of projects, (not that €500 million even nearly covers the cost of this particular project, regardless.)
    nacho libre wrote:
    it will be interesting to see within the next 5-10 years, despite the assurance, if our corporation tax rate is revised upwards.

    Nothing in the treaty directly provides for a raise in corporation tax. But don't be surprised if the pathetic "assurances" they bribed us with don't last very long.

    Published at the end of last year:

    http://www.ep-president.eu/president/ressource/static/files/special/EU_Policy_Challenges_2009-19_-_Full_Text.pdf
    Tax policies and tax legislation/practices in Member States are further harmonized, especially in direct taxation. This allows for a smoother functioning of the single market, thus providing implicit insurance against asymmetric shocks and crises;

    ...

    [The above] is desirable but has not been realistic until now. It remains to be seen whether the crisis presents a lasting opportunity for more harmonization in direct taxation legislation, such as the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), which the EP has been actively calling for.


    Now obviously this cannot happen as of yet, as the Treaty defnes that these sort of fiscal policies are taken on a unanimity basis. But it's still very much on the agenda, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future we were voluntarily forced to adjust our tax policies under pressure.

    However I've gone way off-topic. Nothing in the Lisbon Treaty provided for insta-jobs and anyone who voted for it on that basis was very foolish.


  • #35
    Coillte_Bhoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,909 ✭✭✭Coillte_Bhoy


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »
    What I mean is if the vote in the second referendum had been a "No", what kind of posters would be put up around the place?

    Eh? None from the Socialist Party anyway. Why would they?


  • #36
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    nacho libre wrote: »
    it will be interesting to see within the next 5-10 years, despite the assurance, if our corporation tax rate is revised upwards.

    was the ability of the EU to oversee our budget a provision of the Lisbon Treaty? if it wasn't, then can anyone really definitely dismiss the possibility that the above could happen?

    No, it's part of the Stability and Growth Pact - originally 1997, revised in 2005. The reason it's highly unlikely Ireland will be forced to do something specific such as changing its corporation tax rate is that it would set a precedent allowing the same pressure to be applied to other Member States.

    The EU consists of 27 countries, many of them as small as Ireland or smaller, not 26 plus Ireland, and what's sauce for us is sauce for the others.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    limklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    astrofool wrote: »
    Here's jobs that were created in the last few days:
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0618/biotrin.html
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0621/jobs.html
    .

    Now, can all these jobs be directly attributed to the yes vote on Lisbon? Maybe not, but at least some of them would be.
    What link is there of the "some" new jobs created, you stated got to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Please explain the link and no bull please.


  • #38
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    I was in town the other day and I seen a poster aimed at Fianna Fail and although I can't remember the exact slogan, it went along the lines of "We voted Yes to Lisbon, now where are the jobs Fianna Fail?"

    I think it's true that a lot of poeple voted Yes to Lisbon the second time around because of their fears over the economy. I don't think voting Yes has made much of a difference to our economy though and I think if Ireland had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now.

    I don't want to start a debate on the pros or cons of the Lisbon Treaty itself. I just wanted to know what do FF and other groups that called for a yes vote on the basis of jobs say about this issue now or is it a forgotten issue for them now the treaty has been passed by the Irish people.


    The real argument is that if we said 'no' that multinationals would leave.

    I don't buy it though. I didn't hear a single-multinational company making any claim of the sort (I'm leaving aside the two that actively interjected into the politics of the issue; namely Ryanair and Intel).

    Lisbon didn't seem to stop any multinationals from leaving. Nor did the first no vote seem to cause multi-nationals to leave. Nor did it help in the case where multinationals had already left.

    Multinationals have left/ are leaving/ will leave due to high costs!!!!!! :eek: Maybe Fianna Fail will one day realise that, though they seem disinterested in the machinations of how economies operate outside of their staple of property bubbles.


  • #39
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, it's part of the Stability and Growth Pact - originally 1997, revised in 2005. The reason it's highly unlikely Ireland will be forced to do something specific such as changing its corporation tax rate is that it would set a precedent allowing the same pressure to be applied to other Member States.

    That is only a little comfort. Certainly more than the explicit promises that there was no possibility of our corporate tax rate would ever be interfered with (which was just a disingenuous glad-handling of the electorate). Presumably you are aware of the audible bemoaning of our corporate tax rate from certain quarters in Europe.

    Presumably, also, this is an area that is no longer subject to veto if the occasion arose?


  • #40
    Essexboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Essexboy


    Anyone remember this poster?


  • #41
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,906 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    limklad wrote: »
    What link is there of the "some" new jobs created, you stated got to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Please explain the link and no bull please.

    Businesses, especially FDI businesses, were very much for the Lisbon treaty. The fact that these type of businesses are continuing to expand in Ireland could be attributed to the yes vote.

    What you are asking is impossible, unless we have a no vote parallel universe, we can't directly see if the jobs were created by voting yes. So again, it's the fact that these type of businesses were for Lisbon, and are now recruiting, is a good indication that Lisbon created at least some jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    astrofool wrote: »
    Businesses, especially FDI businesses, were very much for the Lisbon treaty. The fact that these type of businesses are continuing to expand in Ireland could be attributed to the yes vote.

    What you are asking is impossible, unless we have a no vote parallel universe, we can't directly see if the jobs were created by voting yes. So again, it's the fact that these type of businesses were for Lisbon, and are now recruiting, is a good indication that Lisbon created at least some jobs.

    It probably would have been forgotten about by now. The search for a political solution would be now getting the news, well bar the Euro crisis obviously.

    Rejecting it may have had a bearing on the response to the Euro crisis. Slow enough as it was, it may have been worse with no Lisbon.

    Anyway, it is all guess work. Who knows? It's like saying we would be better outside the Euro.

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



  • #43
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    That is only a little comfort. Certainly more than the explicit promises that there was no possibility of our corporate tax rate would ever be interfered with (which was just a disingenuous glad-handling of the electorate). Presumably you are aware of the audible bemoaning of our corporate tax rate from certain quarters in Europe.

    Sure - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a suggestion from A.N.Other Member State that we should raise our corporate tax rate if/when the budget review process gets to the 'specific recommendations' option.

    However, any such suggestion has exactly the same weight the current moaning has, because no Member State is obliged to take account of any specific recommendations. All that's on offer here is 'non-binding' review & suggestions step before budgets are finalised - strictly speaking, the budgets themselves aren't being reviewed - the review takes place in advance of the budgets being written - but rather the framework of assumptions that the budget will be made under.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Presumably, also, this is an area that is no longer subject to veto if the occasion arose?

    Which area? The EU has no powers on direct taxation, and the budget review process introduces no such powers, and couldn't without a Treaty change.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #44
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #45
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Again, it's not quite that detailed:
    The Commission has underlined that the member states have not done enough in good times to reduce their public debt over the past decade. Furthermore, in some member states' budgets were built on the assumption that the additional revenues received during the boom were to be considered structural improvements in the underlying position rather than temporary additions due to exceptional conditions.
    ...
    for early detection, the Commission proposes an early peer review at EU level of the broad budgetary guidelines of each member state, thus informing their competent authorities of the European perspective and guidance before they adopt the national budgets. The approval of the Commission's proposals to reinforce Eurostat's mandate to audit national statistics is a prerequisite to ensure that the assessment is based on accurate data.

    That is, what will be reviewed are the assumptions on which the budget will be based, rather than the budget itself - which won't have been written at the point of the review, because the whole idea is to catch silly assumptions early on.

    What would have happened is that Brian Cowen would have flown over with the, say 2006 budgetary assumptions that the budget for Ireland would be based on, and would have been told "it looks like you're betting the shop on your property boom being sustainable, which is frankly tosh - if you base your budget on that, you'll be back here with your cap out in a year or two". Another country might be asked "your dependency ratios will be rising rapidly over the next five years - is there any provision for that?".

    That's why the review process goes hand in hand with an upgrade of Eurostat, because Eurostat gives the Member States the ability to look at each other's underlying economic structural data - which in turn forms the basis for the assumptions feeding into the budget.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #46
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #47
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    What would have happened is that Brian Cowen would have flown over with the, say 2006 budgetary assumptions that the budget for Ireland would be based on, and would have been told "it looks like you're betting the shop on your property boom being sustainable, which is frankly tosh - if you base your budget on that, you'll be back here with your cap out in a year or two". Another country might be asked "your dependency ratios will be rising rapidly over the next five years - is there any provision for that?".

    All of which might have been nice, but is should be stressed that Ireland will still retain its sovereign right to ignore the comments of the other member states and screw up its economy...

    You can just imagine the reaction to the comments back in 2006 - "We're the celtic tiger - what the f*&k do the Germans know about running an economy?" :)


  • #48
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    View wrote: »
    All of which might have been nice, but is should be stressed that Ireland will still retain its sovereign right to ignore the comments of the other member states and screw up its economy...

    You can just imagine the reaction to the comments back in 2006 - "We're the celtic tiger - what the f*&k do the Germans know about running an economy?" :)

    I'm sure we would have told them our fundamentals were sound.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #49
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    And he'll have to fly back to Dublin and figure out how to break the news to the unions/welfare recipients/taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

    or more likely devise some way to screw the private sector taxpayer in order not to offend the little dears in ps and sw


  • #50
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm sure we would have told them our fundamentals were sound.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    In fact, I think that was the attitude adopted towards the OECD when they recommended the introduction of property-based taxes which they did from around 2002 on. This was, of course, done after they reviewed our economy/budget as they do on an annual basis, I believe.

    Mind you, this OECD review has never bothered the Eurosceptics - it is only when the EU might start to review our budget statistics and assumptions that hysteria breaks out...


  • #51
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Again, it's not quite that detailed:



    That is, what will be reviewed are the assumptions on which the budget will be based, rather than the budget itself - which won't have been written at the point of the review, because the whole idea is to catch silly assumptions early on.

    What would have happened is that Brian Cowen would have flown over with the, say 2006 budgetary assumptions that the budget for Ireland would be based on, and would have been told "it looks like you're betting the shop on your property boom being sustainable, which is frankly tosh - if you base your budget on that, you'll be back here with your cap out in a year or two". Another country might be asked "your dependency ratios will be rising rapidly over the next five years - is there any provision for that?".

    That's why the review process goes hand in hand with an upgrade of Eurostat, because Eurostat gives the Member States the ability to look at each other's underlying economic structural data - which in turn forms the basis for the assumptions feeding into the budget.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    We are now borrowing from the ECB as a last resort unless we want to go to the open market where the rate is fast becoming in excess of 5%,which we can't afford. We have to roll over 78 billion of debt later this year , at what rate of interest? 5,6,7% and thats if they will give it to us. Does anyone realise the enormity of the situation we are in.

    And you think they just want to look at the assumptions and warn us of the dangers. I think there will be consequences, otherwise the whole exercise is futile. Additionally if you are in control of the assumptions you are in control of the budget.

    I just don't get why the connection between the review and the supply of money is not discussed. Some day we have to pay this money back, we are being fed money now not because of love for little old ireland and our place at the heart of europe but to stabilise the euro. That was clear well in advance of Lisbon.

    As for the jobs only the naive would believe it and only the disingenious would promote it. It is a waste of time now scoring political points on this issue, every party was at it. But I guess beggars are like that.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement