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

Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

1…457910…38

Comments

  • #302
    SHOVELLER
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,640 ✭✭✭SHOVELLER


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Can't afford ladders. Austerity thingy.

    Fair enough! Then they wont mind when they are taken down:D

    Health and safety etc!


  • #303
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?

    Yes really. As per our laws the government of the day called a second vote, after receiving guarantees on our concerns. I got the choice a second time to Vote Yes, No or not vote at all.

    I didn't vote in the first one as I didn't read up on the contents, by the second one I was happy to vote yes, which I did. Where's the force in that?
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    As for your other enlightened responses please look up Keynesian economics.

    Keynesian economics suggest you can borrow one third of all government spending and spend a lot more money on generating growth. Really?
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    I'll just leave you with a thought. The Euro is not a safety net. Its a lead weight weighing us down in the financial ocean. Eventually we wont be able to tread water anymore.

    I see, so a resource poor, small country like Ireland will have a great time own it's on will it? Really? When have we ever been able to do that?
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    I believe he makes a point of Iceland because they were the only country that let their banks collapse. Ireland's collapse and Iceland's were very similar other than Ireland took the completely idiotic tact of bailing out its banks with money it did not have and the obvious difference that Iceland still had control of its own economic destiny. By being able to devalue its own currency it has an automatic release valve for improving exports and creating jobs. We do not.

    Yes a country which could let it's banks collapse. A country that had no hope of supporting it's banks. A country who's own finance minister says that they are not an example to follow. A country that doesn't need to import as much as we do. I could go on.
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    The main point stands. Ireland cannot devalue its currency and Germany has no interest in doing anything that doesn't help Germany. The banks simply want the people to pay off all their bad loans and investments and apparently have most of the world leaders either in their back pockets or scared enough to do their bidding. The entire idea of investment risk has been superseded by social financing of Big Banking.

    Right forgive me if I don't buy into your conspiracy. And as if devaluing your currency is the only way to manage an economy.
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    The Markets and Banks should not be running the country. The People of Ireland should be..

    Have the 'people of Ireland' got the money?
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    This other thought is my own. Ireland does not need to trap itself into a treaty with the EU to fix the poor regulation of its banking and investment industry. It also doesn't need to trap itself into a EU treaty that in effect gives more power to the un-elected folks that make up the power structure of the EU. Ireland could very easily create its own laws dictating how to better manage a strong economy and police the out of control nature of Big Banking and the Markets.

    We have already signed up to most of the measures in this Fiscal compact in previous EU treaties. And the same way we can vote in this Fiscal compact we can vote it out.

    As I said crap.

    And btw if you can't see what's wrong with an economist doing what is a slanted opinion piece lacking figures then perhaps I shouldn't bother.


  • #304
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    No need for repeated usage of crap. Unparliamentary language I believe when Albert used it! ;)

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



  • #305
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Hold on,

    We can agree to enter the fiscal compact (provided it comes into force) at any time in the future, but we cannot apparently leave it if we sign (even if we leave the Euro!)
    Actually, there is no mechanism for a country to leave the Eurozone without also leaving the EU. Nor, I imagine, will there ever be.
    The Fiscal Compact would install a penalisation system into the national constitution (or equivalent level). The manner in which this system is implemented is up to the member state, but it must fit a manner as suggested by the Commission.
    Actually it doesn't; it only inserts a requirement for balanced budget into the constitution. In fact, voting "yes" on the 30th Amendment Bill only inserts the following into the constitution.
    Article 29.4:
    10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.

    This allows for the implementation of the following into law, preferably into the constitution... but nothing forcing us to do that. It is up to our government.
    (a)the budgetary position of the general government of a Contracting Party shall be balanced or in surplus;

    (b) the rule under point (a) shall be deemed to be respected if the annual structural balance of the general government is at its country-specific medium-term objective, as defined in the revised Stability and Growth Pact, with a lower limit of a structural deficit of 0,5 % of the gross domestic product at market prices. The Contracting Parties shall ensure rapid convergence towards their respective medium-term objective. The time-frame for such convergence will be proposed by the European Commission taking into consideration country-specific sustainability risks. Progress towards, and respect of, the medium-term objective shall be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as a reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures, in line with the revised Stability and Growth Pact;

    (c) the Contracting Parties may temporarily deviate from their respective medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it only in exceptional circumstances, as defined in point (b) of paragraph 3;

    (d) where the ratio of the general government debt to gross domestic product at market prices is significantly below 60 % and where risks in terms of long-term sustainability of public finances are low, the lower limit of the medium-term objective specified under point (b) can reach a structural deficit of at most 1,0 % of the gross domestic product at market prices;

    (e) in the event of significant observed deviations from the medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it, a correction mechanism shall be triggered automatically. The mechanism shall include the obligation of the Contracting Party concerned to implement measures to correct the deviations over a defined period of time.

    The Commission meanwhile has seemingly outlined separate ideas to

    "require eurozone countries to present their draft budgets at the same time each year. The Commission could then issue an opinion on them, if necessary, and ask governments to revise them in line with their eurozone obligations.

    The second would enhance surveillance for eurozone countries being supported by financial assistance or that are threatened by serious financial instability"

    Whole thing is a bit creepy imo. :pac:

    Nonsense... the only thing that the compact says is that Eurozone countries will meet twice a year to discuss Euro matters and that non EZ members can attend once a year.


  • #306
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?

    I'm getting fairly sick of this to be honest. We have never voted on the same referendum twice and certainly have never been "forced" to do so.

    In 2008 we voted on this:
    1- Article 29 of the Constitution is hereby amended as follows:
    (a) subsections 9° and 11° of section 4 of both the Irish text
    and the English text shall be repealed;
    (b) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 1 of
    the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 10° of
    section 4 of the Irish text;
    (c) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 2 of
    the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 10° of
    section 4 of the English text; and
    (d) subsection 10° of section 4 of both texts shall be numbered
    subsection 9°.

    In 2009 we voted on this:
    1.—(1) Article 29 of the Constitution is hereby amended as
    follows:
    (a) in subsection 3° of section 4 of the Irish text—
    (i) the words “den Chomhphobal Eorpach do Ghual
    agus Cruach (do bunuigheadh le Connradh do
    sı´nigheadh i bPa´ ras an 18adh la´ d’Aibrea´ n, 1951), de
    Chomhphobal Eacnamaı´ochta na hEorpa (do
    bunuigheadh le Connradh do sı´nigheadh insan
    Ro´ imh an 25adh la´ de Mha´ rta, 1957) agus”, and
    (ii) the second sentence,
    shall be repealed,
    (b) in subsection 3° of section 4 of the English text—
    (i) the words “the European Coal and Steel Community
    (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th
    day of April, 1951), the European Economic
    Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome
    on the 25th day of March, 1957) and”, and
    (ii) the second sentence,
    shall be repealed,
    (c) subsections 4°, 5°, 6°, 7°, 8°, 9°, 10° and 11° of section 4 of
    both the Irish text and the English text shall be repealed,
    Citation.
    (d) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 1 of
    the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 3° of
    section 4 of the Irish text,
    (e) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 2 of
    the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 3° of
    section 4 of the English text.

    Can we stop this now? I realise it has only been 3 years but it's time someone said enough is enough about this "re-run" referendum nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    recedite wrote: »
    Scofflaw wrote:
    There doesn't ever seem to have been much German (or even eurozone) money in the Irish domestic banks, as far as can be seen from their balance sheets.
    Well it sure as hell didn't come from ordinary people's deposits.

    This is a summary of the balance sheets of the Irish domestic banking sector - that is, all the banks with any appreciable business in Ireland:

    Year|Total Liabilities|Deposits from Irish Residents|Irish Bank Deposits|Irish Govt Deposits|Irish Private Sector Deposits|Euro Area Deposits|Rest of World Deposits|Irish Resident Bonds|Euro Area Bonds|Rest of World Bonds|Total Bonds|Resident Capital & Reserves|Non-Resident Capital & Reserves|ECB Borrowings|Resident Other|Non-Resident Other
    2003|262|122|21|2|98|14|66|4|1|18|23|15|4|5|8|7
    2004|346|156|41|2|112|17|84|7|3|32|43|18|5|6|9|8
    2005|469|194|55|2|136|30|113|12|9|53|74|21|9|9|11|8
    2006|606|248|88|3|157|34|135|22|12|76|110|25|10|8|15|21
    2007|697|253|84|3|166|35|193|29|15|77|121|30|12|19|15|20
    2008|801|296|126|3|167|38|233|27|16|57|100|28|13|45|26|22
    2009|798|311|131|3|176|26|202|39|12|47|98|41|12|58|35|14
    2010|742|292|132|3|157|16|121|33|10|21|64|64|8|95|69|13
    2011|634|243|99|2|141|85|89|30|8|14|13|2|72|59|19|0


    All amounts are in billions. Source is the aggregate balance sheet data from the Central Bank. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #308
    C14N
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?

    Neither forced nor a re-run, but enough has been said by other posters.
    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    I'll just leave you with a thought. The Euro is not a safety net. Its a lead weight weighing us down in the financial ocean. Eventually we wont be able to tread water anymore...

    ...By being able to devalue its own currency it has an automatic release valve for improving exports and creating jobs. We do not.

    This whole "go back to the punt and devalue the currency" idea would be great if we could survive in a vacuum, but we can't. The prices of so many things would skyrocket. Oil, cars, food, electronics, international travel etc. How are we supposed to buy all that stuff if our money isn't worth squat? I prefer having all those things to the apparent "sovereignty" we keep being told we're losing to Europe.

    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    This other thought is my own. Ireland does not need to trap itself into a treaty with the EU to fix the poor regulation of its banking and investment industry. It also doesn't need to trap itself into a EU treaty that in effect gives more power to the un-elected folks that make up the power structure of the EU. Ireland could very easily create its own laws dictating how to better manage a strong economy and police the out of control nature of Big Banking and the Markets.

    Well the thing about the idea of "we could just do this ourselves" works in theory, but recent history shows we're pretty bad at it. This thought is also my own. Allow me to make an analogy.

    When I was studying for my Leaving Cert, I kept getting distracted because I had a laptop in my room and instead of studying, I just spent ages on Facebook and Youtube and whatever other websites I went to. Now every day I would go up and say "ok, this time I'm not going to turn on the laptop, I'm just going to study". Pretty consistently that became "well I'll only look for a minute" and it all went down from there. The only solution was to have someone else step in and take the whole thing away. Like with Ireland, it would have been great if I could sort it out on my own and it wasn't actually that hard to do in theory but I can just as easily imagine another government saying to themselves "well this time it will be different".

    It's more powerful when you have someone else actually keeping you following the rules and who can step in and tell you when to stop.


  • #309
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    C14N wrote: »




    Well the thing about the idea of "we could just do this ourselves" works in theory, but recent history shows we're pretty bad at it. This thought is also my own. Allow me to make an analogy.

    When I was studying for my Leaving Cert, I kept getting distracted because I had a laptop in my room and instead of studying, I just spent ages on Facebook and Youtube and whatever other websites I went to. Now every day I would go up and say "ok, this time I'm not going to turn on the laptop, I'm just going to study". Pretty consistently that became "well I'll only look for a minute" and it all went down from there. The only solution was to have someone else step in and take the whole thing away. Like with Ireland, it would have been great if I could sort it out on my own and it wasn't actually that hard to do in theory but I can just as easily imagine another government saying to themselves "well this time it will be different".

    It's more powerful when you have someone else actually keeping you following the rules and who can step in and tell you when to stop.

    You speak very eloquently about how we might behave in the future, using the past as an example, but using the same past as our only reference point, where is it proven that the larger member states will suddenly start abiding by the rules?


  • #310
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You speak very eloquently about how we might behave in the future, using the past as an example, but using the same past as our only reference point, where is it proven that the larger member states will suddenly start abiding by the rules?

    No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #311
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
    Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
    Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.
    We have had a considerable amount of jobs created as of late and I heard the new head of intel in Europe recently say that Irish integration and cooperation with Europe is only a positive factor. Multinationals would likely not consider ireland if we were not in the Eurozone.


  • #313
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Scofflaw wrote:
    No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.
    We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
    Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.

    The question of voting mechanisms isn't really "dealing with theories and options". The voting mechanisms for sanctioning breaches of the fiscal limits are changed by the Treaty. The changes make it harder for anyone to avoid sanctions, because they change the system from one where a majority has to support sanctions to one where a majority would have to oppose them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #314
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The question of voting mechanisms isn't really "dealing with theories and options". The voting mechanisms for sanctioning breaches of the fiscal limits are changed by the Treaty. The changes make it harder for anyone to avoid sanctions, because they change the system from one where a majority has to support sanctions to one where a majority would have to oppose them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    You keep saying the future will be different, we have been listening to that mantra since the birth of the EEC. There are those who think that the future will not be different and want to change that.


  • #315
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The question of voting mechanisms isn't really "dealing with theories and options". The voting mechanisms for sanctioning breaches of the fiscal limits are changed by the Treaty. The changes make it harder for anyone to avoid sanctions, because they change the system from one where a majority has to support sanctions to one where a majority would have to oppose them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    You keep saying the future will be different, we have been listening to that mantra since the birth of the EEC. There are those who think that the future will not be different and want to change that.
    Could you seriously say that Ireland is the same country it was before 1973? I was recently having this conversation with someone who queried what benefits Ireland has gained from EU membership. I would remind anyone of the mess this country was in prior to 1973


  • #316
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Could you seriously say that Ireland is the same country it was before 1973? I was recently having this conversation with someone who queried what benefits Ireland has gained from EU membership. I would remind anyone of the mess this country was in prior to 1973
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
    I think what was allowed to happen in the case of Dell is pertinent to how Europe works, they got paid x amount of money by the EU to re-locate in Poland from Ireland
    'That's the market, that's the way it works' say the champions of this policy, economists and corporate people chiefly.
    But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators. Poland (funnily enough the current darling performer of the EU) will get shafted in due course too, that is the moneymaking cycle that is the corporate model, they'll move on elsewhere.
    The EU is an entity where the balance is tilted to favour the mercenary excesses of capitalism. There is no consideration for human beings and their lives, hell rub it up them if the time has come for the 'real' people of Europe to tell them to get lost.
    I said earlier that you can't base your judgement on solely economic reasons because politics has a habit of changing the goalposts. The 'real' people can make a political decision here and to be honest, so far, I can't see how we will be any worse off.


  • #317
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Could you seriously say that Ireland is the same country it was before 1973? I was recently having this conversation with someone who queried what benefits Ireland has gained from EU membership. I would remind anyone of the mess this country was in prior to 1973

    It's kinda aggravating talking to someone who was around in the 1950s about recessions. They just laugh at you. "Recession? I didn't have any bloody shoes!"


  • #318
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »

    Can we stop this now? I realise it has only been 3 years but it's time someone said enough is enough about this "re-run" referendum nonsense.

    I voted on the Lisbon referendum

    the Lisbon referendum was voted on by me

    See. Totally different.

    I can see that this is going to be like your "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND" style argument... :pac:


  • #319
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Multinationals would likely not consider ireland if we were not in the Eurozone.

    That is quite possible, but it would also largely depend on other factors. It is also somewhat tangential to discussion. On topic, I don't personally put much stock in the attraction posed to multinationals by the wishy washy sense of europhile/ europhobic sentiment gained from the results of a referendum.


  • #320
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.

    Well it's more that the Yes side have no imagination on their side and are accused of fear mongering if they tell the truth.
    But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators.

    There is a point there. My feeling is that the current obsession with the "smart economy" is somewhat misled. I'm more interested in the "unmovable economy" - skills that can't be outsourced to a cheaper location. When you can outsource your car service to China I'll reconsider; until then, a mechanics skills are economically valuable, no matter what the ICT fans say.

    We may run into a situation where economic tariffs will have to be reinstated in order to protect our economies from being outsourced en masse.
    I said earlier that you can't base your judgement on solely economic reasons because politics has a habit of changing the goalposts. The 'real' people can make a political decision here and to be honest, so far, I can't see how we will be any worse off.

    I can but you are free to differ in your opinion. I'm beginning to believe beeftotheheels who was for moving the referendum to September. First of all because of the French election and secondly because if Greece fails in the summer, it will (perhaps) give us all an idea of how we can be worse off.


  • #321
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.

    With this Treaty the Yes side are saying this will lead to stricter budget controls and it should if the political will is there. The No side seem to be saying we are grand as we are and voting yes will mean more austerity which, from what I've read, doesn't seem to be the case.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #322
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    carveone wrote: »
    Well it's more that the Yes side have no imagination on their side and are accused of fear mongering if they tell the truth.

    Ah, to be fair, both sides are pretty crap and fear-mongering with their respective messages. No side only tends to be more "imaginative" when Coir raise their heads.
    carveone wrote: »
    There is a point there. My feeling is that the current obsession with the "smart economy" is somewhat misled. I'm more interested in the "unmovable economy" - skills that can't be outsourced to a cheaper location. When you can outsource your car service to China I'll reconsider; until then, a mechanics skills are economically valuable, no matter what the ICT fans say.

    Pretty true
    carveone wrote: »
    We may run into a situation where economic tariffs will have to be reinstated in order to protect our economies from being outsourced en masse.

    Surely the whole point of the EU is that a country cannot have economic tariffs to protect outsourcing (competition)?
    carveone wrote: »
    I can but you are free to differ in your opinion. I'm beginning to believe beeftotheheels who was for moving the referendum to September. First of all because of the French election and secondly because if Greece fails in the summer, it will (perhaps) give us all an idea of how we can be worse off.

    FFS moving it is the only sensible idea. Takes the onus off us for one thing. A bit late in the day, perhaps, but with due cause at least.


  • #323
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    No side only tends to be more "imaginative" when Coir raise their heads.

    Argh! (runs and hides)...
    Surely the whole point of the EU is that a country cannot have economic tariffs to protect outsourcing (competition)?

    Sorry, I meant around the EU rather than in one particular country. Maybe some games could be played with carbon tariffs - ie: if you make your product using a dirty energy source like coal (like, er, China) then you pay more than if you make it using, I dunno, gas or nuclear. It's rigged of course but it looks neutral at first glance ;)
    FFS moving it is the only sensible idea. Takes the onus off us for one ting. A bit late in the day, perhaps, but with due cause at least.

    I expected the whole "growth pact" tack on to be sorted at this stage. Now it's all looking a bit uncertain. How politically possible it is to go moving referenda at the last minute is another thing.

    Greece has pretty much confirmed it can't form a coalition with anti-bailout DL and the polls show Syriza rising in popularity so an election rerun looks inevitable. The Guardian business blog has a picture of Lord Voldemort on it for some reason!

    Edit: Ah yes, related to the JP Morgan thing, not the EU thing. Ireland came out looking quite well after the EU numbers this afternoon...


  • #324
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
    Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.

    Anyone who voted "Yes" to Lisbon because they believed the slogan "Yes for Jobs" is just as stupid as someone who is going to vote "No" this time around because they believe "No to Austerity" and "No to Household Charge and Water Charges". Actually, those who vote "No" this time round are stupider because we all should have learned not to listen to meaningles stupid slogans.

    As for there being no wrong or right answer, that is also stupid. When we joined the EU in 1973, income per capita was 63% of the EU average, now despite all that has happened in the last few years, income per capita is well above the EU average. So the record shows that joining the EU has worked for Ireland so the message should be we want to stay at the heart of Europe.

    Oh, and for those that doubt the influence of the EU, the income per capita gap over Iceland has widened since 1973 despite the fact that Iceland has natural resources and that according to the likes of the SF/ULA axis of ignorance it took the right options in dealing with its banks.


  • #325
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »
    With this Treaty the Yes side are saying this will lead to stricter budget controls and it should if the political will is there. The No side seem to be saying we are grand as we are and voting yes will mean more austerity which, from what I've read, doesn't seem to be the case.

    There is the problem though.


  • #326
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    Anyone who voted "Yes" to Lisbon because they believed the slogan "Yes for Jobs" is just as stupid as someone who is going to vote "No" this time around because they believe "No to Austerity" and "No to Household Charge and Water Charges". Actually, those who vote "No" this time round are stupider because we all should have learned not to listen to meaningles stupid slogans.

    As for there being no wrong or right answer, that is also stupid. When we joined the EU in 1973, income per capita was 63% of the EU average, now despite all that has happened in the last few years, income per capita is well above the EU average. So the record shows that joining the EU has worked for Ireland so the message should be we want to stay at the heart of Europe.

    Oh, and for those that doubt the influence of the EU, the income per capita gap over Iceland has widened since 1973 despite the fact that Iceland has natural resources and that according to the likes of the SF/ULA axis of ignorance it took the right options in dealing with its banks.

    The fact is though that those who govern us where the ones who had the slogans about jobs and the fear factor was played to it's limit.
    Nobody is comparing now to pre '73. Europe is sick, that is plainly evident, to my mind the Fiscal Treaty is a scapegoat and is kicking fundemental change down the road.
    Like Lisbon it will make precious little difference to the everyday except that the richer will stay rich and get even richer while the whole edifice goes down in flames around us at the expense of the poorer members and the poorer citizen. Like the growing number in Europe, I'm for sending these bureaucrats back to the table to look for another way of doing things. Saying No is just part of the way to do that. We are all members.


  • #327
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »

    Can we stop this now? I realise it has only been 3 years but it's time someone said enough is enough about this "re-run" referendum nonsense.

    I voted on the Lisbon referendum

    the Lisbon referendum was voted on by me

    See. Totally different.

    I can see that this is going to be like your "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND" style argument... :pac:
    You did not, I outlined clearly what you voted on: 2 separate constitutional amendments.


  • #328
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.

    What? The No side say that each referendum will produce an entirely different EU. The claim each time goes "the old EU was good for us, but the new EU created by this treaty will be totally different/this treaty will utterly change our relationship with the EU". Now I'd agree that in the senses claimed by the No side on these occasions that's rubbish, but for you to claim that not only has nothing changed, but that the No side are guardians of that truth is entirely laughable.

    To highlight the farcical nature of your claim here, you even manage to refer to the EEC, which you are apparently claiming is exactly the same thing as the modern EU.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I think what was allowed to happen in the case of Dell is pertinent to how Europe works, they got paid x amount of money by the EU to re-locate in Poland from Ireland
    'That's the market, that's the way it works' say the champions of this policy, economists and corporate people chiefly.
    But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators. Poland (funnily enough the current darling performer of the EU) will get shafted in due course too, that is the moneymaking cycle that is the corporate model, they'll move on elsewhere.
    The EU is an entity where the balance is tilted to favour the mercenary excesses of capitalism. There is no consideration for human beings and their lives, hell rub it up them if the time has come for the 'real' people of Europe to tell them to get lost.
    I said earlier that you can't base your judgement on solely economic reasons because politics has a habit of changing the goalposts. The 'real' people can make a political decision here and to be honest, so far, I can't see how we will be any worse off.

    You could start by basing your judgements on facts rather than the same misrepresentations the No side produce every time. Poland offered Dell a relocation grant, the EU approved it because it did not find it to be against the state aid rules. Contrary, then, to your claim that "the EU" moved Dell from Ireland to Poland to suit its capitalist agenda, the EU was involved only to make sure that the process already in motion was fair, and that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the Polish grant. I appreciate, though, that you're just repeating the same rubbish the No side said about the move back in 2009 - but it was rubbish then, and it's rubbish now. Some things don't change.

    And I know that the demonstrably farcical nature of your first claim, and the demonstrable inaccuracy of the "facts" you use to support your second, isn't going to prevent you from coming to the same set of "conclusions" repeatedly, because they're not conclusions but prejudices.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #329
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There is the problem though.

    Indeed. Would you prefer automatic triggers?

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



  • #330
    whatstherush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The EU is an entity where the balance is tilted to favour the mercenary excesses of capitalism.

    Yet only yesterday the EU introduced laws to stop Mobile Phone companies fleecing consumers on roaming data charges. Prob a few crumbs for the proles, I guess.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    What? The No side say that each referendum will produce an entirely different EU. The claim each time goes "the old EU was good for us, but the new EU created by this treaty will be totally different/this treaty will utterly change our relationship with the EU".
    Who said that? Source please.
    Now I'd agree that in the senses claimed by the No side on these occasions that's rubbish, but for you to claim that not only has nothing changed, but that the No side are guardians of that truth is entirely laughable.

    The only answer to that is, eh?
    To highlight the farcical nature of your claim here, you even manage to refer to the EEC, which you are apparently claiming is exactly the same thing as the modern EU.

    To the people who get hammered most there is no real difference if it's the EEC, EU, LEGO, or MIB. Notwithstanding the fact, that I was using 'EEC' to refer to the beginings of the Union.:rolleyes:


    You could start by basing your judgements on facts rather than the same misrepresentations the No side produce every time. Poland offered Dell a relocation grant, the EU approved it because it did not find it to be against the state aid rules. Contrary, then, to your claim that "the EU" moved Dell from Ireland to Poland to suit its capitalist agenda, the EU was involved only to make sure that the process already in motion was fair, and that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the Polish grant.
    Ha ha, 'that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the polish grant'!!!!!! Regardless of where the money came from you managed to miss the point. I suppose Dell weren't unduly influenced by the low wages In Lodz either? Does it remind you of the environment that Dell entered into Ireland at all??
    I appreciate, though, that you're just repeating the same rubbish the No side said about the move back in 2009 - but it was rubbish then, and it's rubbish now. Some things don't change.
    It's only rubbish if you think there are only economic considerations, the 'real people' think different and hopefully will voice their opinions.
    And I know that the demonstrably farcical nature of your first claim, and the demonstrable inaccuracy of the "facts" you use to support your second, isn't going to prevent you from coming to the same set of "conclusions" repeatedly, because they're not conclusions but prejudices.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Here's the cycle of spin you will hear again and again if we keep the same model:

    'The European Commission said it could allow the government aid because the new factory will be established in insert name of suitably impoverished location here, which has an unusually low standard of living and high unemployment'

    It will soon be Limericks turn to be given a brand spanking new factory and benevolent corporation again. We'll call it The Corpo Rape Cycle, (CRC) shall we? :rolleyes:


  • #332
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who said that? Source please.

    No, that is pretty much what the No side typically says. They are right to a point (change vs no change), but they like using hyperbole. The No side hyperbole in this sense seems more damaging because the No side might say:

    This treaty means we'll never vote in a domestic election again!

    While the Yes side might say:

    Ratifying this treaty will mean we'll be rich and have lots of European friends/allies!

    People will say, "knew it was too good to be true" when such riches don't appear, or may alternatively look to the horizon for promised rain. Flabby terms like "the heart of Europe" are so meaningless that one can't actually hold the yes side to such promises in the first place.

    But when there are no conscripted armies, no abortion nor euthanasia the doomsayers on the No side look like fools or knaves. It is a bit late at that stage for the No side to point to the horizon and say; yes, but they'll be a'comin' an' soon. As such they tend to remain pretty discrete on the whole affair (wisely).

    In this particular case austerity will actually exist after the Fiscal Compact, so the socialists and Sinn Fein will be able to point fingers claiming to have accurately predicted the fallout from a yes vote if it is passed.

    Again, there won't be stability after the vote, but the Yes side will say that it has been set in motion and will come, and soon!


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    To the people who get hammered most there is no real difference if it's the EEC, EU, LEGO, or MIB. Notwithstanding the fact, that I was using 'EEC' to refer to the beginings of the Union.:rolleyes:

    In the beginning it was called the ECSC. Lego is a company whilst the MIB don't exist. :D
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Ha ha, 'that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the polish grant'!!!!!! Regardless of where the money came from you managed to miss the point. I suppose Dell weren't unduly influenced by the low wages In Lodz either? Does it remind you of the environment that Dell entered into Ireland at all??

    The EU facilitates economic migration, both of individuals and companies. This was a spectacular instance of FF incompetence, who allowed wages to increase (due to allowing cost of living to increase, due to allowing inflation to increase) to such an extent that other countries (such as Poland) became very attractive propositions to companies such as DELL. FF also allowing unrestricted immigration of eastern Europeans into Ireland did not help in this matter as apparently a large number of Poles were upskilled, here, prior to the move, before moving with the company.


  • #333
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Ha ha, 'that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the polish grant'!!!!!! Regardless of where the money came from you managed to miss the point. I suppose Dell weren't unduly influenced by the low wages In Lodz either? Does it remind you of the environment that Dell entered into Ireland at all??


    Isn't that kind of the point though? There's always some up and coming and cheaper country, we used to be it and now Poland and others are, never mind non-EU countries. It's up to us to stay competitive, Germany managed through low wage increases, we didn't.

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



  • #334
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »
    Isn't that kind of the point though? There's always some up and coming and cheaper country, we used to be it and now Poland and others are, never mind non-EU countries. It's up to us to stay competitive, Germany managed through low wage increases, we didn't.

    The point is that the system is rotten from within.....it's just one part of the reason why Europe is failing. The system has to change from economic emphasis to a human one. People come first. Of course we will have economists tripping over themselves to say it can't be any other way....but then, they would say that. Bankers, corporations and individuals have to realise that there is a limit to profiteering.


  • #335
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
    .


    First you say, the "No" vote have the past on their side to back up the argument that the future under the EU is bad.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Nobody is comparing now to pre '73. .

    Then I present the facts and show how Ireland is much better off having spent nearly 40 years inside the EU and you try and say nobody is comparing now to pre '73. Which is it, the past supports a "No" or not?

    Either the history books show that the EU was bad for Ireland and therefore support the "No" arguments as you say or they don't.


  • #336
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    First you say, the "No" vote have the past on their side to back up the argument that the future under the EU is bad.




    Then I present the facts and show how Ireland is much better off having spent nearly 40 years inside the EU and you try and say nobody is comparing now to pre '73. Which is it, the past supports a "No" or not?

    Either the history books show that the EU was bad for Ireland and therefore support the "No" arguments as you say or they don't.

    :rolleyes: Show me where I said the past in the EU was bad for Ireland? Please comprehend the posts before you post. What I said was the 'past' showed that the larger member states did not conform to the rules. We have to make a leap of faith to believe that they will in the future.
    That is quite a different thing to say, don't you think? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    C14N
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.

    What I seem to always hear are not that one side promises change and the other promises no change but that both sides promise change. The Yes side generally promise things like jobs and growth, whilst the No side generally promise a situation just shy of the apocalypse (someone posted a list of No promises at Lisbon time toward the start of the thread which I found an interesting read).

    So it seems like the No side can't prove anything. What did they say in the past that has actually come true and that we can clearly see is a result of a Yes vote?

    Now admittedly, the Yes side will have just as hard a time proving themselves right, but since they promise vaguer wishy-washier things it's also harder to prove them wrong.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I think what was allowed to happen in the case of Dell is pertinent to how Europe works, they got paid x amount of money by the EU to re-locate in Poland from Ireland
    'That's the market, that's the way it works' say the champions of this policy, economists and corporate people chiefly.
    But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators. Poland (funnily enough the current darling performer of the EU) will get shafted in due course too, that is the moneymaking cycle that is the corporate model, they'll move on elsewhere.

    It seems pretty straightforward what happened with the Dell situation. Factories are generally set up in countries where lots of cheap labour exists (generally poorer but developing countries like Poland, India, China etc) because they just need a pair of hands and not really any qualifications or skills. Once that was us, we were an up and coming country like Poland who had an EU membership and cheap workers.

    Thats why Dell came here. Since then though, we have simply become a different country. We have a pretty substantial minimum wage (€8.65 last time I checked) and that makes it just uncompetitive for anyone with large scale manual labour to do business here. Dell aren't a charity when their business becomes unsustainable, they're going to move out. If we had a lower minimum wage, they probably would have stayed.

    Since Dell came though, we have become an economy whose educated workforce has become our main appeal. You will find Dell left over 1000 technical jobs behind and there are plenty more at other similar companies. We have easier access to third level education than most other countries (even with the fees rising) and those are the jobs with staying power. We're a small country with a high cost of living, we just aren't a good target for manufacturing anymore. Poland is less likely to get "shafted" because they do have a much larger population and they have the geographic convenience of being right in the middle of Europe.

    I also think your calling what Dell did "rape and plunder" is more than a little inaccurate. They gave 20 years of work to people, they didn't actually take anything away. Even after they moved on they left the aforementioned professional jobs behind.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Ah, to be fair, both sides are pretty crap and fear-mongering with their respective messages. No side only tends to be more "imaginative" when Coir raise their heads.

    I actually decided to look out for this today while I was in Dublin and can't say I saw "fear mongering" on the yes side. All the posters paint a rose tinted bright future with a yes vote but they don't give any threats about what a No will bring.

    I mean there was this video with rabid comments all saying "omg this is so true, they're just trying to scare us" and so on:


    But I have yet to hear anyone from either FF, FG, Labour or IBEC (all the main groups supporting Yes) say or imply anything at all like this.


  • #338
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    carveone wrote: »

    if Greece fails in the summer, it will (perhaps) give us all an idea of how we can be worse off.

    Like Iceland did, before it's recovery left us eating dirt?


  • #339
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Like Iceland did, before it's recovery left us eating dirt?

    Here we go again, Iceland this, Iceland that.

    Iceland's debt is 130% of GDP, ours is 107%, think I prefer ours.
    Iceland's inflation rate in 2011 was 5.4%, ours was around 2%, think I prefer ours.
    Iceland's central bank interest rates are also up around 5% while ours are only 1% thanks to our good friends in Europe, think I prefer ours.

    Now their unemployment rate is lower, but their major industries are taking the last bit of fish out of the ground and smelting aluminium in a way that environmental regulation doesn't let the rest of us. Not exactly high-tech unlike our IT and pharmaceutical industries.


  • #340
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Show me where I said the past in the EU was bad for Ireland? Please comprehend the posts before you post. What I said was the 'past' showed that the larger member states did not conform to the rules. We have to make a leap of faith to believe that they will in the future.
    That is quite a different thing to say, don't you think? :rolleyes:

    OK, so your only complaint is that the big member states sometimes didn't obey the results in the past. Two questions

    (1) Now that the new Treaty improves on that by giving the ECJ a role, why do you object, surely that is better than the current situation?
    (2) If Ireland's interests are better served by ratifying the Treaty regardless of what the bigger member states do, what is the point in voting no?


  • #341
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
    .


    This quotation is still bothering me. If I remember correctly, ever since Crotty made us have referenda, the "No" side have been saying that we are handing over more and more sovereignty to the EU and that we will have no economic power left.

    Yet, all by ourself, without anyone in the EU stopping us, McCreevy, Ahern, Cowen and Lenihan managed to practically bankrupt this country. If all of those "No" campaigns were right, how did it get to the stage when we were spending 15% more than we earned without anyone from the EU stopping us. When Cowen and Lenihan guaranteed the banks (amid howls of outrage from the UK and the EU) why didn't they stop us seeing as we had handed away our sovereignty years before according to the "No" campaigners.

    The fact that we messed up ourselves so much shows how little sovereignty we gave away in reality and show how much the little boys of the "No" campaign were shouting wolf.

    The past clearly supports the "Yes" arguments, and clearly debunks the "no" position.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    C14N wrote: »
    I mean there was this video with rabid comments all saying "omg this is so true, they're just trying to scare us" and so on:


    But I have yet to hear anyone from either FF, FG, Labour or IBEC (all the main groups supporting Yes) say or imply anything at all like this.

    Ah cmon C14n, that video is satire. It works because it plays on serious pronouncements.

    Look in the various politics forums:

    "Dye know wats gonna happen if you vote no? Have ye ever seen Mad Max"

    Theres a thread in Politics currently where the argument is if Noonan is telling us he will raise taxes as retribution if we vote no, or the more benign version that he'll simply be forced to if we are as mule faced to reject the well meaning direction of our European cousins.

    "Dye want us t'be kicked outa de yuro - iz dat wat yur playin at!?"

    There has been a *constant* message that Ireland will is merely surviving in the Euro (and the EU) at the mercy of the larger states. If we don't do what they say without quibble then we will be cast out into the darkness.

    "There'll be AIDS pouring out of the ATM machines if you bog brains vote against this!"

    Again, a constant message that the government was forced to do whatever it was told by the EU/ECB/Troika or "The ATMs would stop working".

    There has been an almost continuous message of No choice - No alternative - No option delivered by advocates of the plan. There was widespread hysteria on the forum over the dire consequences of a Greek default, where dark, hidden yet terrible OTC derivative contracts would cast us into doom should Greece default. Greece defaults, nothing happens. Well, there's one less person who reads my posts...the world moves on.

    The same cast assure us that there's no requirement for a referendum on the Fiscal compact. And even if there was, shure there's no choice anyway.

    But suddenly, wrong as they consistently have been throughout the entire drama (and before you accept their analysis of the implications of the treaty, remember that they didnt believe the implications of the treaty included an Irish referendum), there is a referendum. There is a choice. There is an option. There is an alternative.

    Its no wonder that there is a reflexive leap to the "Yiz'all be fecked if yiz dare say no" because the Yes side have never, ever, ever been able to justify even to themselves why the strategy makes sense. They've honestly, if incorrectly presumed that there is no choice - no alternative - no option. So when it comes to actually having to defend and argue for the strategy they resort to fear-mongering.

    Isn't it odd that some many vocal advocates of the "Yes" vote identify themselves as reluctantly on the Yes side? Shouldn't such an undeniably brilliant win for Irish economic governance have enthusiastic supporters?

    Its also interesting that advocates of the current strategy - which is pinned on adherence to EU/ECB/Core wishes to win favour for an eventual debt relief will simultaneously assure us that such debt relief is entirely impossible? They're incorrect of course, but you'd have to question what their end goal is if they are truly urging Ireland down a self destructive path to win a redemption they believe is impossible under the EU treaties.


  • #343
    C14N
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Sand wrote: »
    Ah cmon C14n, that video is satire. It works because it plays on serious pronouncements.

    Don't get me wrong, I know that. I actually thought the video was kind of funny by itself, but looking at the comments on it, it has really rallied a lot of ignorant people who seem to hold it up as more than enough reason to vote No. I've seen it crop up a few times on boards in a similar context.

    Just grabbing the first three comments there that aren't by me:

    "having said that at least sarcozy ,who pressured Cowen and his bank bail out euro shmoozing patzies to have another vote on the lisbon treaty after democracy worked and we said NO..well he's gone now and it seems the new president Francois Hollande is resisting this encraoching globalsim. Vote NO people."

    "If the result is a No, we will be told,"wrong answer try again." while all the fear mongering nonsense about us being tossed aside,back to the age of the famine,no money for us, for being bold and having an opinion.
    10 years from now they will want to castrate the first born boys to reduce population,and chip everyone for our own "safety" and If we diagree the same s**t will be parroted from europe and even our own government puppets....ye'll end up back in the stone age.."

    "I rather be poor than vote Yes to an ever closer 4th Reich which is the end game, fiscal union followed by political union is the aim here be under no illusions. the only job thats garaunteed from a yes vote is Lucinda Creightons and so she may continue to live a lavish lifestyle shopping in brown thomas. she would sell her soul to the EU if they asked her. VOTE NO"


    Sand wrote: »
    Theres a thread in Politics currently where the argument is if Noonan is telling us he will raise taxes as retribution if we vote no, or the more benign version that he'll simply be forced to if we are as mule faced to reject the well meaning direction of our European cousins.

    Why has this even come up? I'd like to see the Noonan quote where he hints at these tax rises for voting "no".
    Sand wrote: »
    "Dye want us t'be kicked outa de yuro - iz dat wat yur playin at!?"

    There has been a *constant* message that Ireland will is merely surviving in the Euro (and the EU) at the mercy of the larger states. If we don't do what they say without quibble then we will be cast out into the darkness.

    Well where is it? I've been listening to the news, a few talk shows and I've read a few articles in the Times on the referendum, but not once have I seen a quote (directly or indirectly) from a politician or prominent Yes proponent saying "we have to vote Yes or we will (or even might) be kicked back out of the EU/Eurozone" or even anything close. I will change my stance if there is one but I haven't seen it yet.
    Sand wrote: »
    Its no wonder that there is a reflexive leap to the "Yiz'all be fecked if yiz dare say no" because the Yes side have never, ever, ever been able to justify even to themselves why the strategy makes sense. They've honestly, if incorrectly presumed that there is no choice - no alternative - no option.

    Look through this thread, plenty of people have justified the Yes vote quite well. You seem to think all the major parties just have a knee-jerk reaction to vote Yes and aren't really concerned about their own country at all. I heard a soundbite one day recently on the news where Enda Kenny challenged Adams to say what his plan was if we vote No and he had nothing, he just rubbed it off saying "it's my job to ask the questions here". That certainly isn't reassuring.

    Nobody has said there is no alternative either, just that Yes is the best option.

    Sand wrote: »
    So when it comes to actually having to defend and argue for the strategy they resort to fear-mongering.

    Well back to my original question. Where exactly is this "fear mongering"? Find me a sign, a website, a leaflet, a quote, anything at all that instills the notion of "we're screwed if we vote no". I can easily go into town and find dark, gloomy signs saying "5, 10, 20 years of austerity", heck their website has "austerity treaty" in the name. I haven't seen a single one showing "No" being positive, just assurances about how awful our lives will be for voting yes.
    Sand wrote: »
    Isn't it odd that some many vocal advocates of the "Yes" vote identify themselves as reluctantly on the Yes side? Shouldn't such an undeniably brilliant win for Irish economic governance have enthusiastic supporters?

    No, its not odd at all. Neither option is going to magically cure the country, it's just that the Yes side believe No will hurt more.


  • #344
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    This quotation is still bothering me. If I remember correctly, ever since Crotty made us have referenda, the "No" side have been saying that we are handing over more and more sovereignty to the EU and that we will have no economic power left.
    The Yes side continually let themselves down by claiming that all No voters are of a 'type'. It's why they are continually in trouble in referenda. They assume.
    This 'No' voter has always been pro Europe but like many thousands of others has woken up to the fact that this isn't an equal union by any stretch of the imagination.
    The elite have woken the tiger, I am convinced they will regret it, the Union is dying, in it's present form at least.
    Yet, all by ourself, without anyone in the EU stopping us, McCreevy, Ahern, Cowen and Lenihan managed to practically bankrupt this country. If all of those "No" campaigns were right, how did it get to the stage when we were spending 15% more than we earned without anyone from the EU stopping us. When Cowen and Lenihan guaranteed the banks (amid howls of outrage from the UK and the EU) why didn't they stop us seeing as we had handed away our sovereignty years before according to the "No" campaigners.

    The fact that we messed up ourselves so much shows how little sovereignty we gave away in reality and show how much the little boys of the "No" campaign were shouting wolf.

    What allowed them to behave like that? Cheap, no holds barred money from Europe.
    p.s. In practical terms we have had the same people, with the same ethos in power for more than half a century. I have already said that change is needed.
    The past clearly supports the "Yes" arguments, and clearly debunks the "no" position.

    No it clearly doesn't.
    Again; this is not a referendum about economics, it has been turned into a political referendum because people want to send a message to Europe that enough is enough, Enda and his cronies are patently not able to or won't.

    The French, The Greeks are all doing the same in their public displays. Did the French run scared electing Hollande? Did anybody even attempt to scare them by suggesting that electing somebody who wanted to change the terms of the Fiscal Treaty might incur the economic wrath of Europe?


  • #345
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Godge wrote:
    Yet, all by ourself, without anyone in the EU stopping us, McCreevy, Ahern, Cowen and Lenihan managed to practically bankrupt this country. If all of those "No" campaigns were right, how did it get to the stage when we were spending 15% more than we earned without anyone from the EU stopping us. When Cowen and Lenihan guaranteed the banks (amid howls of outrage from the UK and the EU) why didn't they stop us seeing as we had handed away our sovereignty years before according to the "No" campaigners.

    The fact that we messed up ourselves so much shows how little sovereignty we gave away in reality and show how much the little boys of the "No" campaign were shouting wolf.
    The fact that other peripheral Eurozone economies like Spain and Greece have also fallen through suggests a European element to the causation of the crisis rather than an exclusively national one.


  • #346
    karlth
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    Godge wrote: »
    Here we go again, Iceland this, Iceland that.

    Iceland's debt is 130% of GDP, ours is 107%, think I prefer ours.
    Iceland's inflation rate in 2011 was 5.4%, ours was around 2%, think I prefer ours.
    Iceland's central bank interest rates are also up around 5% while ours are only 1% thanks to our good friends in Europe, think I prefer ours.

    Now their unemployment rate is lower, but their major industries are taking the last bit of fish out of the ground and smelting aluminium in a way that environmental regulation doesn't let the rest of us. Not exactly high-tech unlike our IT and pharmaceutical industries.

    Let me clarify a bit here:
    • Iceland's government debt is 90% of GDP (the last number in the document). Of which the vast majority is in its own controlled currency.
    • Inflation is 5-6% and the interest rates are relatively high. GDP grew by 3% last year and similar growth is estimated this year.
    • The icelandic fishing industry is by no means "the last bit of fish out of the ground". In fact all major fish stocks have grown during the last few years as the Iceland has since the 80s implemented a strict quota system to ensure that all stocks are renewable.
    • Also "smelting aluminium in a way that environmental regulation doesn't let the rest of us" is not something I'm familiar with. Apart from all smelters being required to run highly effective pollution filters they all run on pure green power (hydro or geothermal).
    • Tourism is booming, thanks mostly to the fame that came with volcanic activity and the low krona. The hi-tech sector is also doing quite nicely but future growth will probably mostly come from unused green power.

    The only serious problem facing Iceland (and it is a major problem) is the currency. It has been a very double edged sword for the country. In the end though I think it has been a necessary tool as it allowed us to have more say in our destiny. It is no fun though when travelling abroad!

    But as many have pointed out. What has suited Iceland doesn't necessarily suit Ireland. For example it is impossible to imagine that any international company would want to have its European hq in Ireland if the country dropped the euro and had to implement currency controls.


  • #347
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    It is also worth pointing out that our bond rates have dropped significantly in the last year, we aren't far of sustainable rates like Iceland, so some do have faith that what we are doing can work.

    I'd add the caveat that these investors know we have the backing of the EFSF and the new fund if we need it, so we have leeway in correcting our finances, unlike Iceland.

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



  • #348
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    karlth wrote: »
    It is no fun though when travelling abroad!

    What is happening here is that a large section of the population can't travel abroad or even make their household books balance.....but they will be, as usual, forgotten by the cosy elite in their clamour to maintain their status quo. That is the sickening imbalance in our fiscal policy. There is a solidarity about Iceland that is very attractive. We decimated our fishing fleet at the behest of the EU. Take a trip to Killybegs, look at the empty local harbour and the foreign factory ships out in the bay where locals have no choice but to go and work on and tell me that EU policy is working or even wise.


  • #349
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    C14N wrote: »
    Why has this even come up? I'd like to see the Noonan quote where he hints at these tax rises for voting "no".

    Irish Times May 1st 2012 - "Noonan comments criticised"

    Noonan: "If there's a No vote the Budget I'll be planning for later in the year will be dramatically more difficult than if there's a Yes vote.

    "If people think that by voting No they'll avoid further tax cuts (:pac:) and increases, actually a No vote will do the opposite," he added.

    11 page thread here: "I'll raise taxes if you vote no, Noonan warns"
    Out loud he said "I'll raise taxes if you vote no"

    And in his head he said:

    "And I'll raise them if you vote yes" *snigger*....
    Well where is it? I've been listening to the news, a few talk shows and I've read a few articles in the Times on the referendum, but not once have I seen a quote (directly or indirectly) from a politician or prominent Yes proponent saying "we have to vote Yes or we will (or even might) be kicked back out of the EU/Eurozone" or even anything close. I will change my stance if there is one but I haven't seen it yet.

    Irish Independant Dec 14th 2011 "Any referendum a vote on euro membership - Noonan"


    “It really comes down on this occasion to a very simple issue, do you want to continue in the euro or not,” Mr Noonan said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

    “Faced with that question, I think the Irish people will pass such a referendum.”
    Look through this thread, plenty of people have justified the Yes vote quite well. You seem to think all the major parties just have a knee-jerk reaction to vote Yes and aren't really concerned about their own country at all. I heard a soundbite one day recently on the news where Enda Kenny challenged Adams to say what his plan was if we vote No and he had nothing, he just rubbed it off saying "it's my job to ask the questions here". That certainly isn't reassuring.

    I haven't seen the Yes vote justified in any credible way. Apart from the scaremongering over a no vote theres been two main lines of thought:
      we've already signed up to the limits so whats the big deal
      so no need to sign up to them again so...also the "whats the big deal" misses that the fiscal treaty will grant other EU states (i.e. Germany..) the ability to take Ireland to court independently
      signing up to the treaty will win us some future favour or save from the core in gratitude
      This is sheer hope as policy - even advocates of this view are unable to present any evidence for this hope. Also, supporters of "the plan" are simultaneously pointing out that any relief is completely impossible and illegal even if the Germans wanted to provide it
      This view also places a high value on Ireland winning the sympathy and favour of stronger countries - to this mindset, a No vote is a direct provocation to those countries, which they will remember and brood over, waiting for an opportunity to punish us in some petty fashion - if that sounds ludicrous, its because it is.
    Nobody has said there is no alternative either, just that Yes is the best option.

    Well back to my original question. Where exactly is this "fear mongering"? Find me a sign, a website, a leaflet, a quote, anything at all that instills the notion of "we're screwed if we vote no".

    See above.

    Also more Noonan fearmonger: Noonan: There’s no backup fund if Ireland votes No

    “A No vote is a leap into the unknown,” said Minister Noonan.

    Whereas a Yes vote is a leap into certainty :rolleyes: To demonstrate, Enda Kenny assures us that Minister Noonan's around the source of additional funding is irrelevant.

    RTE News: Kenny 'absolutely rules out' second bailout

    “I do not share the view at all in regard to a second bailout being necessary.”

    Well, I'm glad that's certain.
    I can easily go into town and find dark, gloomy signs saying "5, 10, 20 years of austerity", heck their website has "austerity treaty" in the name. I haven't seen a single one showing "No" being positive, just assurances about how awful our lives will be for voting yes.

    Given its the Yes side which is arguing for a change to our laws to bind us into an economic suicide pact its up to them to justify it. If someone proposed escaping a stampeding herd of elephants by jumping off a cliff, the "No" argument is going to center on the rather dire consequences of jumping off the cliff pretty much by default...

    For the record I find the austerity treaty nonsense to be exactly that. Ireland is going to face a decade or more of austerity regardless of the treaty being passed or not passed: we spent and spent and spent and now we pay and pay and pay. Both sides could do with some honesty on that point - ESM access is being held up as some sort of salve which will forestall the need for austerity by the Yes side.

    The treaty is based on bad economics, and the treaty proposes to bind Irish economic planning to bad economic principals. Its the classic "do something" response to a problem. Ireland needs fiscal discipline, and it needs institutions and transparency to achieve it. Dumb, stupid treaties like these will not do anything to assist the process - instead they will hide it as the game becomes rigging the statistics (Look at how NAMA was kept off the governments books...) instead of pursuing proper discipline.


  • #350
    Gingernuts31
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 374 ✭✭Gingernuts31


    The thing that gets me is if we only have to get our GDP down to 3% and its forcast we will be down at 8.3 this year whats this thing of Sein Fein austriety for the long term? Once we hit 3% its only a matter of keepin it at that so that shouldn't be too difficult if the state is spending within its mean. Also I believe the EU will not dictate what Ireland can and cannot spend its money on once it keeps its GDP at 3%. Im on the fence because I don't trust Merkel and I don't trust our government but at the same time the same party calling for a no vote has called for a no vote in every single treaty ever put to Ireland, even tho some of them have helped us along?

    To me it seems Sein Fein just want there to be a no vote so it will look good on them. They keep singing the same tune " people will have austerity for the next 10 or 15 years". Its the same song every time and they have nothing really to back it up.

    Even econimists say that the treaty doesn't really benefit Ireland in a direct way but voting no would be a disaster for us.


  • #351
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Gingernuts31 wrote: »
    The thing that gets me is if we only have to get our GDP down to 3% and its forcast we will be down at 8.3 this year whats this thing of Sein Fein austriety for the long term? Once we hit 3% its only a matter of keepin it at that so that shouldn't be too difficult if the state is spending within its mean. Also I believe the EU will not dictate what Ireland can and cannot spend its money on once it keeps its GDP at 3%. Im on the fence because I don't trust Merkel and I don't trust our government but at the same time the same party calling for a no vote has called for a no vote in every single treaty ever put to Ireland, even tho some of them have helped us along?

    To me it seems Sein Fein just want there to be a no vote so it will look good on them. They keep singing the same tune " people will have austerity for the next 10 or 15 years". Its the same song every time and they have nothing really to back it up.

    Even econimists say that the treaty doesn't really benefit Ireland in a direct way but voting no would be a disaster for us.
    Voting no to the euro did Denmark and Sweden no harm. Noonan says this is effectively a referendum on euro membership.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement