View Registered User
#31

Heads the ball said:
No I think you are confusing what the electorate want.


I understand what "Yes" means. You are the one arguing that it means "No, but..".

Heads the ball said:
You said a couple of posts ago "the majoirty of the electorate were happy with it"

I think very few people were happy with it and they just voted out of fear and sheepishness


Ah, the old "The electorate must be stupid or afraid" to vote differently to me argument.

You can point out the recent mass demonstrations where the electorate have demanded that we refuse to ratify after all, can't you?

Heads the ball said:

The negative consequences of the Treaty wont really be felt until
1: We want to run a deficit or
2: We lose our ESM contribution when one of the borrowers goes belly up and defaults

Other than that its just another erosion of the meager soverignty which we had left


The dire consequences scenario - I suppose they"ll happen around the time we"ll be forced to join NATO (as claimed first in the 1972 referendum on membership), introduce euthanasia and be mass-conscripted...

Still, no fear mongering in any of those claims, right?

Scofflaw Registered User
#32

So, does a return to the bond markets constitute evidence of 'stability' for Ireland? I would say so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball Registered User
#33

Scofflaw said:
So, does a return to the bond markets constitute evidence of 'stability' for Ireland? I would say so.

cordially,
Scofflaw


No because the markets are fickle and it only takes one bad headline/new crisis to push us out again.

What exactly is stable here? A 6.something% interest? We are still running a deficit. So no returning to the bond markets is not evidence of stability

Heads the ball Registered User
#34

Heads the ball said:
No I think you are confusing what the electorate want.


I understand what "Yes" means. You are the one arguing that it means "No, but..".

Heads the ball said:
You said a couple of posts ago "the majoirty of the electorate were happy with it"

I think very few people were happy with it and they just voted out of fear and sheepishness


Ah, the old "The electorate must be stupid or afraid" to vote differently to me argument.

You can point out the recent mass demonstrations where the electorate have demanded that we refuse to ratify after all, can't you?

Heads the ball said:

The negative consequences of the Treaty wont really be felt until
1: We want to run a deficit or
2: We lose our ESM contribution when one of the borrowers goes belly up and defaults

Other than that its just another erosion of the meager soverignty which we had left


The dire consequences scenario - I suppose they"ll happen around the time we"ll be forced to join NATO (as claimed first in the 1972 referendum on membership), introduce euthanasia and be mass-conscripted...

Still, no fear mongering in any of those claims, right?


I dont think there was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.

And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opened the door


However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering

timbyr Registered User
#35

Heads the ball said:

And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opebed the door


No we wouldn't. And no we aren't. If you haven't noticed it has been 20 years since the X Case. This legislation is long overdue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X


I dont thibk tgere was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.


However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering

As for this. It is so backward and wrong I'm not even going to bother making an argument.

2 people have thanked this post
Heads the ball Registered User
#36

timbyr said:
No we wouldn't. And no we aren't. If you haven't noticed it has been 20 years since the X Case. This legislation is long overdue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X



Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.


timbyr said:
As for this. It is so backward and wrong I'm not even going to bother making an argument.


OK. I win so.

timbyr Registered User
#37

Heads the ball said:
Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.

This actually helps my argument. We have three Irish parties taking a case against the Irish government for failing to enact Irish legislation based on an Irish Supreme court ruling using the ECJ as a medium.

So no. The ECJ is not forcing us to do anything.


OK. I win so.

OK. Let's play it that way.
You have made claims regarding the campaigns for and against the referendum.
Convince me these claims are justified.

1 person has thanked this post
#38

We still dont have any real economy here - its all FDI/service based and we are clinging onto that by our fingertips because of our low tax rate



The amount of sh1te talking on this thread is almost unbelievable.

I work for a major software company, and last week my corporate credit card got levied with a 30 euro government tax. Everyone else in my office with a corporate credit card also got levied.

Whats my point? I work in the Czech republic but our finance office is in Cork, and so my corporate credit card is a Bank of Ireland card and the government tax was the irish Government. The other 1000 or so european employees with corporate cards who live outside of Ireland all got levied.

I remember going out to dinner with a woman from HR who was visiting, and I thought it hilarious that this HR woman from Israel carried with her, her Bank of Ireland credit card.

So thats about 30,000 euros for the government coffers, from one company. Add on all the other companies with either financial offices or headquarters here, and thats adding up to serious money, even ignoring the jobs they provide.

Where is the stability? The stability is in the thousands of IT and Pharma jobs that people are in at the moment. The stability is in Google being headquartered here, not in Zurich or Paris.

People love trotting out the 450,000 number of people out of work figure. Thats about 14.5% of the population. Its worth pointing out that at the height of the boom when there were jobs a plenty, the unemplyment percentage was about 5%, so the real unemployment figure is really about 9%. Contrast that with the unemployment rate of Spain, where the percentage out of work is over 24%.

2 people have thanked this post
Heads the ball Registered User
#39

timbyr said:
This actually helps my argument. We have three Irish parties taking a case against the Irish government for failing to enact Irish legislation based on an Irish Supreme court ruling using the ECJ as a medium.

So no. The ECJ is not forcing us to do anything.


They are pressurising us. No government has legislated on it for a reason. Now the ECJ is telling us to legislate. Pretty simple.


timbyr said:
OK. Let's play it that way.
You have made claims regarding the campaigns for and against the referendum.
Convince me these claims are justified.


No. Why dont you convince me that the my previous post was wrong - other than just generally being backward.

Heads the ball Registered User
#40

syklops said:

Where is the stability? The stability is in the thousands of IT and Pharma jobs that people are in at the moment. The stability is in Google being headquartered here, not in Zurich or Paris.

People love trotting out the 450,000 number of people out of work figure. Thats about 14.5% of the population. Its worth pointing out that at the height of the boom when there were jobs a plenty, the unemplyment percentage was about 5%, so the real unemployment figure is really about 9%. Contrast that with the unemployment rate of Spain, where the percentage out of work is over 24%.


Not sure what your point on the credit cards is.

This so called stability associated with IT and Pharma and Google could not be further from stable; those companies are here primary because of our tax rate and in some cases the "dutch sandwhich" tax trick. We are hostage to these companies which do not allow us to raise our tax or they would be outta here.

We have no "real" economy - like if all the FDI/IFSC industry in Ireland collapsed, what would we have left in terms of real "stuff" that we make and do? Not very much. And that is highly unstable.

The comparison to Spain is laughable. Why are you bothering to point to Spain and say "we are not as bad as them"? SO WHAT! I could point out that Spain is not as bad as Rwanda but its irrelevant.

And the real unemployment figure is 14.5% AND GROWING

#41

Heads the ball said:
Not sure what your point on the credit cards is.

This so called stability associated with IT and Pharma and Google could not be further from stable; those companies are here primary because of our tax rate and in some cases the "dutch sandwhich" tax trick. We are hostage to these companies which do not allow us to raise our tax or they would be outta here.


They may be here primarily for our tax rate, and yes if we increase it they may leave, so lets not increase it. Meanwhile, they are employing people and paying tax. Sounds like an economy to me.


We have no "real" economy - like if all the FDI/IFSC industry in Ireland collapsed, what would we have left in terms of real "stuff" that we make and do? Not very much. And that is highly unstable.



Well if the IFSC collapsed tomorrow we would have bigger things to worry about, such as will Tesco be stocking milk tomorrow, and will Esso have oil so I can drive to tesco to check.


The comparison to Spain is laughable. Why are you bothering to point to Spain and say "we are not as bad as them"? SO WHAT! I could point out that Spain is not as bad as Rwanda but its irrelevant


Oh jesus. When the IMF and the ECB are looking at the figures for the countries in trouble. Ireland is put in the same report as Spain, as well as Italy and Greece. So camparing our situation to them is very relevant. If you don't understand that then there is not much point continuing the argument.

View Registered User
#42

Heads the ball said:
Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.


The ECJ had no involvement whatsoever in the case you cite.

That is a completely non-EU matter.

Heads the ball Registered User
#43

View said:
The ECJ had no involvement whatsoever in the case you cite.


Yes OK the ECHR

View said:
That is a completely non-EU matter.


If you say so

Heads the ball Registered User
#44

syklops said:
Oh jesus. When the IMF and the ECB are looking at the figures for the countries in trouble. Ireland is put in the same report as Spain, as well as Italy and Greece. So camparing our situation to them is very relevant. If you don't understand that then there is not much point continuing the argument.


The IMF... The ECB. So what!

I am capable of doing my own research and unlike you, I dont take comfort in the fact that we are slightly better than a country that is doing terribly right now. Thats a flawed methodology.

#45

Heads the ball said:
The IMF... The ECB. So what!

I am capable of doing my own research and unlike you, I dont take comfort in the fact that we are slightly better than a country that is doing terribly right now. Thats a flawed methodology.


What do you mean so what?

In fact what the f**k is your main point? You asked, where is the stability. people try to show you it. And you say so what? WTF?

I have better things to be doing then trying to convince you that things aint so bad.

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!