Tough Times ahead...

Danno

Listening to Biffo on the Six One news and having him tell us that we'll have tough times ahead and that voting no to Lisbon was to blame! FFS Where to these fcuk heads get off?

When a company created 20 jobs in Dublin it's evidence of the "Government" at work according to them.

When things go wrong - Joe public is to blame - a la Lisbon.

I hate these FFailers.

mike65

I doubt he actually said that, he just used a form of words that suggested same.

Anyway I for one welcome our Church Mice Overlords.

Mike.

Kama

They took power during the Mice (or is it Meece?) Treaty?

Mr.Micro

Danno wrote: »

Listening to Biffo on the Six One news and having him tell us that we'll have tough times ahead and that voting no to Lisbon was to blame!

If its true that was what Cowen was suggesting then I would love to see his rationale. I do not suppose the likes of Freddie May and Fannie whatnot, the subprime lenders in the US , recently bailed out by the US Government, today Lehmann Brothers file for bankruptcy and Merill Lynch had to be sold as well. Why did all the central banks not notice what was going on with this subprime lending and exposure??? This is the real cause of the meltdown and Ireland's policy of totally relying on the construction industry and housing boom. All built, the US end that is, on what is probably corrupt,criminal, and irresponsible lending practices, and as I say the very regulators the central banks, notably the Federal reserve, noticed nothing wrong? Unbelievable.

That is the real reason IMO for the upcoming hard times, not the Lisbon Treaty, I for the life of me cannot see the correlation, then I am not a FF..er. One other point, one could think that Cowen is trying to frighten people into voting yes if they put the Treaty up for a vote again.

ejmaztec

As both communism and capitalism have failed, what's next - barter?

Fratton Fred

I can't see what Lisbon has to do with any of this.

Lehmann Brothers, Merril Lynch and Bear Stearns have all gone tits up. Those banks are massive and their collapse will have huge implications all over the world. This would have happened regardless of Lisbon.

If Cowen did say this (and I'd like to see a quote if possible) then he is either stupid, incompetant or deliberately trying to mislead the Irish voter.

Begob

Danno wrote: »

Listening to Biffo on the Six One news and having him tell us that we'll have tough times ahead and that voting no to Lisbon was to blame! FFS Where to these fcuk heads get off?

It dispairs me when people watch somethings and hear what they like.
six one is available on line here and nothing of the sort was said.
In fact he blamed it on the usual,the credit crunch etc.

oscarBravo

I did see a quote from him that said, basically: we have enough uncertainty in the climate of a world credit crunch without creating additional uncertainty about our position in Europe. I'd tend to go along with that view.

The Corinthian

Firstly, I would suggest that someone pulls out what he actually said as opposed to this heresay.

Secondly, the no vote to Lisbon did add a level of uncertainty, and this did have an effect upon business. Any genius could figure that one out.

This was not a huge effect, but on top of the global financial crisis and the collapse of the construction industry, the last thing that Ireland needed was another shock.

The Corinthian

Begob wrote: »

It dispairs me when people watch somethings and hear what they like.

This is why democracy can only work if it goes hand in hand with eugenics.

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, the no vote to Lisbon did add a level of uncertainty, and this did have an effect upon business. Any genius could figure that one out.

In what way? What are businesses uncertain about now that they wouldn't have been uncertain of had the result of the referendum gone differently?

The Corinthian wrote:

This is why democracy can only work if it goes hand in hand with eugenics.

Are you aware that the Lisbon Treaty would have outlawed eugenics?

jmayo

Did anyone notice Michael Martin at press conference commenting on Lisbon and possible rerun ?
While he talked about it he rubbed his chin, rubbed his face, had his hand over his mouth etc.
He exhibited all the tell tale signs that he was lying and he appeared a little disconcerted with the whole thing. He said they were ruling nothing out or in, but from his body language he was bullsh**ing and they have made up their minds on what is going to happen.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

In what way? What are businesses uncertain about now that they wouldn't have been uncertain of had the result of the referendum gone differently?

In the immediate aftermath of the vote there was uncertainty - and much speculation - as to Ireland's future. There was even talk as to Ireland leaving - or being kicked out.

Personal experience: I was dealing with an Italian firm shortly after who asked if Ireland was going to leave the Eurozone as this is what they'd heard (one of the reasons that they have any dealings with Ireland is because of the Euro, btw). I corrected them, but ultimately the uncertainty is out there, and this causes people to think twice were it comes to investment or doing business.

Regardless of how one feels about the treaty, it really should not need to be explained that a 'yes' was a status quo result, while a 'no' was a shock to the system. Shocks to the system adversely affect economies. Q.E.D.

That is not to say that we should have voted 'yes', as sometimes a shock to the system may be the lesser of two evils, but seriously - is it really that difficult to the basic principles of business confidence?

Are you aware that the Lisbon Treaty would have outlawed eugenics?

If we'd voted in favour, we may not have needed it.

Still, I see you didn't get the gag or have no sense of humour. Maybe both.

DadaKopf

ejmaztec wrote: »

As both communism and capitalism have failed, what's next - barter?

Capitalism lurches from crisis to crisis. Ironically, this is one of the undeniable insights of Marx and his honchos. Not an original idea though, Marx got the idea from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, I believe.

The crisis is driven by something very simple: people get money to invest in capital; said investment starts making profit; said profit accumulates and people jump on the bandwagon; said profiteers make super-normal profit and, poor things, need somewhere to stash it; said stashes involve piling said over-accumulation into investment bubbles; said investment bubbles burst; capitalism enters crisis. QED.

Jus' sayin', like.

Fratton Fred

DadaKopf wrote: »

Capitalism lurches from crisis to crisis. Ironically, this is one of the undeniable insights of Marx and his honchos. Not an original idea though, Marx got the idea from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, I believe.

The crisis is driven by something very simple: people get money to invest in capital; said investment starts making profit; said profit accumulates and people jump on the bandwagon; said profiteers make super-normal profit and, poor things, need somewhere to stash it; said stashes involve piling said over-accumulation into investment bubbles; said investment bubbles burst; capitalism enters crisis. QED.

Jus' sayin', like.

Big bubble this time though.

5000 people at Lehman Bros about to lose their job os going to hit London hard. The expectation is that the 60% of the business that wasn't involved inToxic debt will be sold and moved on, but there are no firm announcements as yet.

Imagine the redundancy bill for the 4000 staff at Canada Square, there will be some very very big earners in that lot.:eek:

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

In the immediate aftermath of the vote there was uncertainty - and much speculation - as to Ireland's future. There was even talk as to Ireland leaving - or being kicked out.

Only ignorant yes voters seriously speculated about the possibility of Ireland being kicked out of the EU and nobody on the no side seriously suggested that it would be in our interest to leave the common market with the EU.

If business people were uncertain about these kinds of things then I'm sure the same people would likely have also been uncertain about the our tax sovereignty if the treaty had been passed. How many potential investors would have been put off from investing in this country if the result had been a yes and the future of our low corporation tax became a matter of uncertainty?

The Corinthian wrote:

Personal experience: I was dealing with an Italian firm shortly after who asked if Ireland was going to leave the Eurozone as this is what they'd heard (one of the reasons that they have any dealings with Ireland is because of the Euro, btw). I corrected them, but ultimately the uncertainty is out there, and this causes people to think twice were it comes to investment or doing business.

If people can be as ill-informed as to believe that there was any prospect of Ireland leaving the eurozone as a result of having voted no to an EU treaty then it's unlikely they would have been any better informed had the treaty been passed.

The Corinthian wrote:

Regardless of how one feels about the treaty, it really should not need to be explained that a 'yes' was a status quo result

Oh I think it does need to be explained. I think it needs to be explained very carefully to those of us who didn't fall for the yes side scaremongering about the economic crisis that would result from a no vote.

How exactly would Ireland's economic prospects have been different if the result had been a yes rather than a no? To say that uncertainty exists is not really an answer as uncertainty would also have existed if the vote had gone the other way.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

How many potential investors would have been put off from investing in this country if the result had been a yes and the future of our low corporation tax became a matter of uncertainty?

Again with the corporation tax :rolleyes:.

This has been absolutely done to death at this stage yet people such as yourself still maintain (without a shred of evidence) that Lisbon would have allowed the EU to dictate our taxation policy. Why?

O'Morris wrote: »

If people can be as ill-informed as to believe that there was any prospect of Ireland leaving the eurozone as a result of having voted no to an EU treaty...

It's no worse (in my eyes) than believing that a 'Yes' to Lisbon would have resulted in Sarkozy & co. forcing a change in our corporation tax rate.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think it needs to be explained very carefully to those of us who didn't fall for the yes side scaremongering about the economic crisis that would result from a no vote.

If Ireland had voted 'Yes' to Lisbon, then there would be little uncertainty surrounding the short-to-medium term future of the EU and Ireland's role within it. Seeing as Ireland voted 'No' to Lisbon, the future of the EU is less certain and Ireland's role within even less so. Nobody can say at this point where our relationship with the EU will go from here. We could have done without such uncertainty in the current economic conditions.

O'Morris wrote: »

To say that uncertainty exists is not really an answer as uncertainty would also have existed if the vote had gone the other way.

A certain amount of uncertainty surrounding our economic future would have existed, yes. But the situation has been confounded by the uncertainty surrounding our future within the EU.

ejmaztec

DadaKopf wrote: »

Capitalism lurches from crisis to crisis. Ironically, this is one of the undeniable insights of Marx and his honchos. Not an original idea though, Marx got the idea from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, I believe.

The crisis is driven by something very simple: people get money to invest in capital; said investment starts making profit; said profit accumulates and people jump on the bandwagon; said profiteers make super-normal profit and, poor things, need somewhere to stash it; said stashes involve piling said over-accumulation into investment bubbles; said investment bubbles burst; capitalism enters crisis. QED.

Jus' sayin', like.

But I think that it's safe to say that one day it will push too far, and who is to say that this isn't that time? We don't know what irrecoverable debts the banks are sitting on, and are keeping quiet about. When a few audits have taken place, the truth will out. Also, there are a lot more big players in the world today than there used to be. It wasn't so long ago that the Russian and Chinese economies were severely restricted.

Must be time for a big war, that seems to do the trick.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

This has been absolutely done to death at this stage yet people such as yourself still maintain (without a shred of evidence) that Lisbon would have allowed the EU to dictate our taxation policy. Why?

I've never claimed that the EU would have been allowed to dictate our taxation policy. That's not the point I was making. I don't believe our corporation tax is directly threatened by the Lisbon Treaty but I don't believe that the EU can kick us out either just because we vote against an EU treaty. If people are ignorant enough to hold the latter view when the vote goes one way then it's very likely that the same people will believe the former when the vote goes the other way.

djpbarry wrote:

It's no worse (in my eyes) than believing that a 'Yes' to Lisbon would have resulted in Sarkozy & co. forcing a change in our corporation tax rate.

Exactly, which is the point I was trying to make. If people can be ignorant enough to believe that Ireland would leave the eurozone simply as a result of voting no to an EU treaty, it's likely that the same people would be ignorant enough to believe that our low corporation tax would be threatened through tax harmonisation if the treaty had been passed.

djpbarry wrote:

If Ireland had voted 'Yes' to Lisbon, then there would be little uncertainty surrounding the short-to-medium term future of the EU and Ireland's role within it. Seeing as Ireland voted 'No' to Lisbon, the future of the EU is less certain and Ireland's role within even less so.

Politically but not economically. Economically it's business as usual. Unless you can point to anything in the business environment that has changed as a result of the no vote.

djpbarry wrote:

Nobody can say at this point where our relationship with the EU will go from here.

As long as we have continued access to their markets, everything else is irrelevant.

djpbarry wrote:

We could have done without such uncertainty in the current economic conditions.

There is no uncertainty. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our access to the EU's markets has been threatened by the no vote. There is no reason to believe either that large numbers of businesses and investors hold that view.

djpbarry wrote:

A certain amount of uncertainty surrounding our economic future would have existed, yes. But the situation has been confounded by the uncertainty surrounding our future within the EU.

I don't think so. I think there's less uncertainty now than there would have been if the treaty had been passed. As I said, it's business as usual. We still have low corporation tax and we still have access to the EU's markets. What more do we need?

nohopengn

Yeah tough times are ahead.... we all know the reason why - a)to much reliance/financial stimulation to builders, b)lack of proper investment in the country (education, broadband etc. etc...) and c)dirty/illegal dealings by politicians.

Here's my point: last night on Today Tonight, two references were made to a €700 billion worth of gas that have been sold off to Shell by dirty politicians.
Why doesn't the government undo the deal that was made? It's got to be possible - Shell wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court. Once it can be proved that the politicians who made the deal did so illegally and not with the interests of the country.

€700Billion is a lot of euros and I don't know why the opposition aren't making it more of an issue.

Didn't BP get burnt by the Russians (Rosneft).

Why can't Shell get burnt by the Irish?

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Only ignorant yes voters seriously speculated about the possibility of Ireland being kicked out of the EU and nobody on the no side seriously suggested that it would be in our interest to leave the common market with the EU.

Firstly, the media speculated on this option, although most admitted it highly unlikely. Secondly, plenty of 'no' supporters subsequently called for leaving the EU - there were plenty of threads even here on the issue.

If business people were uncertain about these kinds of things then I'm sure the same people would likely have also been uncertain about the our tax sovereignty if the treaty had been passed.

Our tax rates are of little interests to foreign companies that trade with us. They are only of interest to foreign companies that wish to base themselves here.

How many potential investors would have been put off from investing in this country if the result had been a yes and the future of our low corporation tax became a matter of uncertainty?

It's a fair point, but as per my previous post, it comes down to what was the bigger shock to the system. A 'no' vote was always going to be that.

If people can be as ill-informed as to believe that there was any prospect of Ireland leaving the eurozone as a result of having voted no to an EU treaty then it's unlikely they would have been any better informed had the treaty been passed.

Quite possibly. One major problem with EU treaties is that ultimately they are treaties - they're not very comprehensible to your average Joe Soap.

My own feeling is that the Yes/government side failed miserably to convey any pro-treaty argument (the campaign was used as an opportunity by politicians to get free posters of themselves plastered around) and the No side (principally Libertas) was both well funded and organized and were able to convey enough of a F.U.D. message to win the day.

So ultimately I don't believe that the average voter really had much of a clue by the time they got to the ballot box.

Oh I think it does need to be explained. I think it needs to be explained very carefully to those of us who didn't fall for the yes side scaremongering about the economic crisis that would result from a no vote.

No it really shouldn't. I already explained it and as you can see it's not rocket science.

I have never believed that a no vote would plunge us into an economic crisis, but I have always thought that it would be another nail in an already existing economic coffin. I also believe that politically we would lose a lot of face with our European partners, making future concessions on other issues more difficult (unfortunately this is how diplomacy works).

How exactly would Ireland's economic prospects have been different if the result had been a yes rather than a no? To say that uncertainty exists is not really an answer as uncertainty would also have existed if the vote had gone the other way.

Nowhere near to the same level of uncertainty as it was ultimately the 'status quo' option and that's what counts. Indeed, the Irish business community all came out in favour of the treaty, so really the uncertainty argument against the treaty is a bit of a red herring.

DadaKopf

ejmaztec wrote:

But I think that it's safe to say that one day it will push too far, and who is to say that this isn't that time? We don't know what irrecoverable debts the banks are sitting on, and are keeping quiet about. When a few audits have taken place, the truth will out. Also, there are a lot more big players in the world today than there used to be. It wasn't so long ago that the Russian and Chinese economies were severely restricted.

Must be time for a big war, that seems to do the trick.

I heard one economic historian, who has traced development of the world economy since 1492, say that each time there was an economic boom, it was at least twice the size of the previous boom. The crashes were also twice as big. So, if this historical analysis is right, and if this crisis is a full-blown crisis as some are talking about (i.e. 1929), then we're down the crapper for half a generation at least. End of the global capitalist system? I wouldn't want to predict that. Actually, I don't think social sciences should try to predict anything, all they do is analyse.*

On a related note, Joseph Stiglitz' Guarticle is worth a read.


* I also wouldn't discount incidents like the debacle in South Ossetia, now potentially Crimea, Bolivia, and the failure of the Lisbon Treaty as early warning signs of war in decades to come.

sink

nohopengn wrote: »

Yeah tough times are ahead.... we all know the reason why - a)to much reliance/financial stimulation to builders, b)lack of proper investment in the country (education, broadband etc. etc...) and c)dirty/illegal dealings by politicians.

Here's my point: last night on Today Tonight, two references were made to a €700 billion worth of gas that have been sold off to Shell by dirty politicians.
Why doesn't the government undo the deal that was made? It's got to be possible - Shell wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court. Once it can be proved that the politicians who made the deal did so illegally and not with the interests of the country.

€700Billion is a lot of euros and I don't know why the opposition aren't making it more of an issue.

Didn't BP get burnt by the Russians (Rosneft).

Why can't Shell get burnt by the Irish?

Because it is extremely bad for attracting future FDI. Russia scared off any further investment for their energy industry and severely damaged their reputation. They have a market that's big enough to absorb the shock, we don't.

Belfast

ejmaztec wrote: »

As both communism and capitalism have failed, what's next - barter?

Not barter. MadMaxism.

Where is Mel Gibson now that we need him?

Fratton Fred

nohopengn wrote: »

Didn't BP get burnt by the Russians (Rosneft).

Why can't Shell get burnt by the Irish?

The Irish would never resort to the sort of tactics the Russians used tbh.

Using their security services, immigration and courts to force BP into conforming to their partners will is typical of the Russians, not so the Irish government I believe.

The BP head of the joint venture was forced into hiding over that whole saga.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't believe our corporation tax is directly threatened by the Lisbon Treaty…

Actually, you just said that it was:

“How many potential investors would have been put off from investing in this country if the result had been a yes and the future of our low corporation tax became a matter of uncertainty?”

O'Morris wrote: »

Politically but not economically.

Political instability leads to economic instability; the two are not mutually exclusive.

O'Morris wrote: »

As long as we have continued access to their markets, everything else is irrelevant.

No it is not. How the EU is run is certainly not irrelevant. If it was, then sure we could just let Sarkozy make all the decisions on everyone else’s behalf; I’m sure that would go down well with the ‘No’ camp.

O'Morris wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

We could have done without such uncertainty in the current economic conditions.

There is no uncertainty.

Isn’t there? None whatsoever? Well you best get down to Leinster House and let them know, because it seems to me they are rather unsure of how to proceed with this whole Lisbon/EU thing.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think so. I think there's less uncertainty now than there would have been if the treaty had been passed.

I’d love to here how you arrived at that conclusion. What uncertainty would have arisen had Ireland ratified the Lisbon Treaty?