Support for the Lisbon Treaty increases to 54%

nesf

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0601/1224247818463.html?digest=1

Yes 54% (+2)
No 28% (-1)
D/K 18% (-1)

And the support for Lisbon hardens and gains a bit more ground. I can't see the No vote dropping beneath 25/26% though.

BlitzKrieg

the turn out will be morei important though. more of that 28% is likely to show up to vote then of the 54%.

ionix5891

a lot of negativity has befallen this country lately so i am not holding my breath (but i will lodge my vote) and the usual suspect of Libertas, SF and COIR will be out in full force again, flinging mud and lies, and then bringing the debate to new lows :rolleyes:

tough times usually mean nuts get listened to more, so i am really worried, and hope people think objectively before voting and maybe check sites like this where we have some insightful debates and comments.

the fact alone that Europe are still helping Ireland to the tune of a few hundred billion in these tough times, should make people realize that united we stand and divided we fall.

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

a lot of negativity has befallen this country lately so i am not holding my breath (but i will lodge my vote) and the usual suspect of Libertas, SF and COIR will be out in full force again, flinging mud and lies, and then bringing the debate to new lows :rolleyes:

Yeah they're the bad guys. Not the ones who ignored the initial Lisbon Treaty result and refused to respect the democratic decision by the Irish people. No sir!

ionix wrote:

the fact alone that Europe are still helping Ireland to the tune of a few hundred billion in these tough times, should make people realize that united we stand and divided we fall.

The fact alone that Jose Manuel Barroso, before the Lisbon Treaty result had even been officially announced at Dublin Castle, was out announcing that the rejection didn't matter one iota, should make people realize that the European Union will ultimately spell the end for the admirable democratic principles that this state was founded on.

As far as I am concerned, any political party that supports the dismissal of the original Lisbon Treaty result is now, and forever shall be, removed from the democratic process.

I will be using the forthcoming elections to express my disgust at the present sorry shower who couldn't give a toss about the people's wishes and yet, at the same time, style themselves as the people's best hope for the future.

BlitzKrieg

I will be using the forthcoming elections to express my disgust at the present sorry shower who couldn't give a toss about the people's wishes and yet, at the same time, style themselves as the people's best hope for the future.

Caroline?

nesf

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yeah they're the bad guys. Not the ones who ignored the initial Lisbon Treaty result and refused to respect the democratic decision by the Irish people. No sir!

Eh, in the last referendum a lot of people voted No because they either didn't understand the question (i.e. what the treaty was about) or they thought it'd bring in abortion or conscription etc which is false. Either of these would surely recommend that the question needs to be resubmitted to the people and the matter explained in more detail and the lies countered if the people are going to make an informed democratic decision on the issue.

lostexpectation

bogus poll we don't know the wording yet, and we don't know when it will be implemented , whether it will be along iwth a accession treaty in 2010

Iwasfrozen

Yeah they're the bad guys. Not the ones who ignored the initial Lisbon Treaty result and refused to respect the democratic decision by the Irish people. No sir!

Sigh, you people again, look a Government always has the right to rerun a referendom. The Irish people elected a pro-european Government.

nesf

lostexpectation wrote: »

bogus poll we don't know the wording yet, and we don't know when it will be implemented , whether it will be along iwth a accession treaty in 2010

The wording is in the article I linked to in the first post:

In the latest poll voters were asked how they would vote in the light of the commitment to allow Ireland to retain a European Union commissioner along with legal guarantees on other Irish concerns about neutrality, abortion and taxation.

They've been using this wording since the last referendum from what I remember.

Mr.Nice Guy

nesf wrote: »

Eh, in the last referendum a lot of people voted No because they either didn't understand the question (i.e. what the treaty was about) or they thought it'd bring in abortion or conscription etc which is false. Either of these would surely recommend that the question needs to be resubmitted to the people and the matter explained in more detail and the lies countered if the people are going to make an informed democratic decision on the issue.

Ah yes the 'They're all thickos' argument. You know I found myself thinking similarly when Fianna Fáil were re-elected at the last general election, but you know what, I accepted the vote because it's democracy in action.

For the record, a lot of people who voted Yes didn't understand it either. I recall an elderly woman explaining her main reason for voting Yes was because she didn't want to be negative.

I didn't realise the last time around I was participating in a nationwide opinion poll. I thought it was the actual referendum. Silly me!

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Sigh, you people again,

Yes it's us pesky democrats again. Hey ya!

Iwasfrozen wrote:

look a Government always has the right to rerun a referendom. The Irish people elected a pro-european Government.

A government indeed has the right to rerun a referendum but the dogs on the street know that it would have never happened had the original vote been Yes (regardless of the confusion involved as nesf well knows), and we all likewise know that if in such a situation there were calls to rerun the referendum from the No side following a close-run defeat, such calls would have been scornfully dismissed as a ridiculous notion by Yes voters.

It's blatant hypocrisy in action. You see you can't pick and choose when you're a democrat. In the words of a famous European Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That's true democracy. Not accepting democratic results only when it suits your agenda as the European Union, this government and their supporters like to believe.

ionix5891

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yeah they're the bad guys. Not the ones who ignored the initial Lisbon Treaty result and refused to respect the democratic decision by the Irish people. No sir!



The fact alone that Jose Manuel Barroso, before the Lisbon Treaty result had even been officially announced at Dublin Castle, was out announcing that the rejection didn't matter one iota, should make people realize that the European Union will ultimately spell the end for the admirable democratic principles that this state was founded on.

As far as I am concerned, any political party that supports the dismissal of the original Lisbon Treaty result is now, and forever shall be, removed from the democratic process.

I will be using the forthcoming elections to express my disgust at the present sorry shower who couldn't give a toss about the people's wishes and yet, at the same time, style themselves as the people's best hope for the future.

not again :eek:

come one all your rants where addressed in parallel threads

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

not again :eek:

come one all your rants where addressed in parallel threads

Eh?

rugbyman

over the last few years i have met many people who have sheepishly admitted that they voted NO in the last lisbon referendum. i said to each of them ,friends or not ,that i had never yet heard one who had a valid reason for doing so.

the amount who voted no on ridiculous grounds, on the back of equally ridiculous rumours ,was staggering.

I feel that the party who advocated a No vote will not be so No ish next time.

regards, Rugbyman

nesf

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Ah yes the 'They're all thickos' argument.

Right, I'll warn you about this once, this isn't AH, deliberately misrepresenting someone's point like the above is neither allowed nor tolerated.

oscarBravo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Ah yes the 'They're all thickos' argument. You know I found myself thinking similarly when Fianna Fáil were re-elected at the last general election, but you know what, I accepted the vote because it's democracy in action.

...and therefore will vehemently oppose any future general elections? After all, the people have spoken.

Steviemak

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Ah yes the 'They're all thickos' argument. You know I found myself thinking similarly when Fianna Fáil were re-elected at the last general election, but you know what, I accepted the vote because it's democracy in action.

Go and elect an anti EU govt and the referendums will not be redone. Thats democracy.

Zuiderzee

We already voted no to a specific treaty, and we are expected to do it again and again until the correct answer is given?

It has been rejected - thats democracy.


citizensimon.blogspot.com

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We already voted no to a specific treaty, and we are expected to do it again and again until the correct answer is given?

It has been rejected - thats democracy.


citizensimon.blogspot.com

And it can be voted on again - that's also democracy. If your views haven't changed, you give the same answer again. It's not as if you're being asked to jump through burning hoops.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We already voted no to a specific treaty, and we are expected to do it again and again until the correct answer is given?

It has been rejected - thats democracy.


citizensimon.blogspot.com

If you assume that the poll is accurate [which im not suggesting it is], what you're saying is that even though right now, 54% of the people want the Lisbon Treaty passed, they shouldnt be allowed to do it, because people in the past voted against it.

We are to be held to our past decisions, and are not allowed change them.
Where's the freedom in that?

Zuiderzee

Jaysus - How many times do you need to vote on the same issue?
There comes a point when a democratic decision must be accepted.

Is there not a regulation on time between referenda on the same issue?

I think it is undemocratic to force the same referendum until the answer the government wants is recieved.

Its a bit Mugabe-esque

This is something that will effect all of the EU is to be decided by less than 1% of the population of the Union.
Here in Holland Lisbon was rejected (I'm flying home for the Euro vote) - In France Lisbon was rejected and in Ireland Lisbon was rejected.

Now in fairness when it comes to polls, those are a sample.
Thanks for being clear about that PHB.
As you said 54% who are polled are in favour.
If we are to go on that, then why not poll people in a strong FG area if we should have a General Election?

Here on this forum occasionally there is the Sinn Fein/Libertas comment when I post about my concerns on Lisbon but for the main part in this debate on this forum most posters have their opinion, and express themselves in a civil and understandable way.

I seem to be one of the few posting here who is worried about Lisbon and despite assurances from the Government I am still unsure about it, with - in my opinion - very good grounds - Nice II / PfP

Last point, being one of the few who seem to be posting against - and this is not critical or personal - I just want to say, Scofflaw, you are well informed on Lisbon, and you have your obvious opinion, but you are also a moderator, so a little bit more impartiality would be welcome.

citizensimon.blogspot.com

Mr.Nice Guy

nesf wrote: »

Right, I'll warn you about this once, this isn't AH, deliberately misrepresenting someone's point like the above is neither allowed nor tolerated.

In what way did I deliberately misrepresent a point? You said the question should surely be resubmitted on the grounds that a lot of people 'didn't understand the question (i.e. what the treaty was about)'.

oscarbravo wrote:

...and therefore will vehemently oppose any future general elections? After all, the people have spoken.

No, the government merits its term in power and it would have been undemocratic to dismiss the will of the people no matter how unpalatable I found it. I must wait a few years to get my next opportunity to turf them out. I accept that.

Scofflaw wrote:

And it can be voted on again - that's also democracy. If your views haven't changed, you give the same answer again. It's not as if you're being asked to jump through burning hoops.

I doubt Yes voters would welcome another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it gets endorsed at this second attempt though, wouldn't you say?

Steviemak

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I doubt Yes voters would welcome another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it gets endorsed at this second attempt though, wouldn't you say?

Well why don't you elect a govt on that basis and they can put forward a referendum on this issue. Its that simple. Once it is enacted then the only referendum left is to remove us from the EU.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Last point, being one of the few who seem to be posting against - and this is not critical or personal - I just want to say, Scofflaw, you are well informed on Lisbon, and you have your obvious opinion, but you are also a moderator, so a little bit more impartiality would be welcome.

Two points - first, I'm not required to be neutral in discussion, I'm only required to be fair to posters as posters. Second, you don't post advice on moderation in the forum. If you wish to comment on moderation, you do it Help Desk - it's an infractable/banning offence within the forum.

Those are the rules - I'm here to enforce them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

I doubt Yes voters would welcome another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it gets endorsed at this second attempt though, wouldn't you say?

I'd bitch and moan about it (probably because for this to happen we would have a libertas and/or Sinn Feinn government which is kinda scary) but I wouldnt try and take the unjustified high road and declare the referendum undemocratic.

No, the government merits its term in power and it would have been undemocratic to dismiss the will of the people no matter how unpalatable I found it. I must wait a few years to get my next opportunity to turf them out. I accept that.

then you must accept the powers you have given that same government. Which include referendums. On a side note, I find the lisbon referendum the most interesting of the two 2 attempts referendums because it came so soon after a general election and yet despite everyone knowing we will have to address Lisbon within a year it was never major issue at the general election, all the parties that oppossed it actually lost seats and that the public opinion of the EU was actually very high.

nesf

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

In what way did I deliberately misrepresent a point? You said the question should surely be resubmitted on the grounds that a lot of people 'didn't understand the question (i.e. what the treaty was about)'.

I was referring to polls taken directly after the referendum which stated that a worrying large percentage of No voters voted No because they didn't understand the treaty and/or didn't know what the treaty entailed. Which can be at least partially attributed to slogans like "If you don't know, Vote No!" and similar. These polls received such high levels of publicity in the media that it should have been clear what I was referring to.

Not understanding something is not being thick nor does it require people to be in any way unintelligent, it just requires them to either not be exposed to a concept, not have read it or have difficulty understanding it (in this case) due to it being written in technical language that the vast majority of people do not encounter in their normal life. Your skipping from my statement to me saying that they were "thickos" is creating a straw man not addressing the point, whether you realised what you were doing or not.

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Last point, being one of the few who seem to be posting against - and this is not critical or personal - I just want to say, Scofflaw, you are well informed on Lisbon, and you have your obvious opinion, but you are also a moderator, so a little bit more impartiality would be welcome.

We're not required to be neutral in our posts, just our moderating decisions. Actually you're better off with us revealing our biases in our posts because it'll make biased moderating decisions easier to spot (i.e. if I go around randomly banning people who support Labour it'll be pretty obvious from my posts that it isn't accidental ).

BlitzKrieg

if I go around randomly banning people who support Labour it'll be pretty obvious from my posts that it isn't accidental

I'd like to point out I havnt been banned yet

Scofflaw

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

In what way did I deliberately misrepresent a point? You said the question should surely be resubmitted on the grounds that a lot of people 'didn't understand the question (i.e. what the treaty was about)'.

Which you chose to characterise as being a statement that No voters were thick. It's possible you genuinely don't know the difference between being ignorant of the details of an issue and being thick, but the former means not having enough information, and the latter means incapable of using information.

The ignorance in question is largely the fault of the official campaigns, which absolutely failed to explain and illuminate the treaty and its implications. That doesn't involve any voters being "thick".

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

No, the government merits its term in power and it would have been undemocratic to dismiss the will of the people no matter how unpalatable I found it. I must wait a few years to get my next opportunity to turf them out. I accept that.

And by the same set of rules (Bunreacht), the government is entitled to ask a question at referendum as many times as it think it can politically get away with it. It's only likely to do it when it thinks there's a genuine chance that the electorate has changed its mind.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I doubt Yes voters would welcome another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it gets endorsed at this second attempt though, wouldn't you say?

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with it. The tendency of the Yes side to roll over and go to sleep after a Yes (perhaps with a short interlude for a post-vote cigarette) is something that irritates me vastly. Knowing there would be a rematch might keep them on their toes - plus, of course, there would be the endearing spectacle of watching the No campaigns tying themselves in knots explaining how such a third referendum was legitimate while the second one wasn't really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Two points - first, I'm not required to be neutral in discussion, I'm only required to be fair to posters as posters. Second, you don't post advice on moderation in the forum. If you wish to comment on moderation, you do it Help Desk - it's an infractable/banning offence within the forum.

Those are the rules - I'm here to enforce them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I run a fairly popular sport forum so I do understand how tricky the job can be.

As I stated, it was not personal, critical or meant as advice - it was a request -

If you feel that is infractable/bannable then do what you feel is best.

In future I will if I'm not suspended or banned I will use the help desk.

One question - are any of the mods here against the Lisbon treaty?

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

One question - are any of the mods here against the Lisbon treaty?

Guan Yin is an American living in America and she is neutral on the issue. If she spots any bias in our moderation I assure you she'll bring it to our attention. Other than that, I'm unsure where the Admins of the site are on this issue but it wouldn't surprise me if we had a No voter or two among them (and some are apolitical) and they overrule us and have final say in moderation matters.

Mr.Nice Guy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'd bitch and moan about it (probably because for this to happen we would have a libertas and/or Sinn Feinn government which is kinda scary) but I wouldnt try and take the unjustified high road and declare the referendum undemocratic.

I'm declaring the dismissal of the first referendum undemocratic. Let's be honest mate if the shoe was on the other foot you and others would do exactly the same.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

then you must accept the powers you have given that same government. Which include referendums. On a side note, I find the lisbon referendum the most interesting of the two 2 attempts referendums because it came so soon after a general election and yet despite everyone knowing we will have to address Lisbon within a year it was never major issue at the general election, all the parties that oppossed it actually lost seats and that the public opinion of the EU was actually very high.

I do accept the right of the government to exercise its powers but I can't and won't accept that it is morally justifiable. I don't think I can be blamed for that. I believe it's an affront to democracy. If they wanted to return to the issue in a few years that's fair enough, but before the result was even officially announced it was evident they had no intention of respecting the result.

nesf wrote:

I was referring to polls taken directly after the referendum which stated that a worrying large percentage of No voters voted No because they didn't understand the treaty and/or didn't know what the treaty entailed. Which can be at least partially attributed to slogans like "If you don't know, Vote No!" and similar. These polls received such high levels of publicity in the media that it should have been clear what I was referring to.

Not understanding something is not being thick nor does it require people to be in any way unintelligent, it just requires them to either not be exposed to a concept, not have read it or have difficulty understanding it (in this case) due to it being written in technical language that the vast majority of people do not encounter in their normal life. Your skipping from my statement to me saying that they were "thickos" is creating a straw man not addressing the point, whether you realised what you were doing or not.

Well I wasn't trying to create a straw man argument. Just seems to me that there's a rather sweeping view about, largely media-driven perhaps, that at the first referendum most No voters didn't understand what they were voting for and that those who voted Yes did understand what they were voting for, and that therefore the original vote can be dismissed more easily.

It's as if we are considered to be not as enlightened as everybody else is.

Case in point when some chap on this thread commented 'you people again' after I made my views known. As if I'm some slack-jawed yokel whose views ought not to be taken seriously.

nesf

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well I wasn't trying to create a straw man argument. Just seems to me that there's a rather sweeping view about, largely media-driven perhaps, that at the first referendum most No voters didn't understand what they were voting for and that those who voted Yes did understand what they were voting for, and that therefore the original vote can be dismissed more easily.

I didn't say most and I didn't at all say that Yes voters were fully informed or more informed than No voters. You're seeing things in my statement that aren't there mate.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I run a fairly popular sport forum so I do understand how tricky the job can be.

As I stated, it was not personal, critical or meant as advice - it was a request -

If you feel that is infractable/bannable then do what you feel is best.

In future I will if I'm not suspended or banned I will use the help desk.

No offence (personal or otherwise) taken! I just wanted to be very clear about the standing answer to questions like that one.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

One question - are any of the mods here against the Lisbon treaty?

There were a couple of very solid No posters who as far as I know were under consideration, but unfortunately they've changed their position since the referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

I'm declaring the dismissal of the first referendum undemocratic. Let's be honest mate if the shoe was on the other foot you and others would do exactly the same.

When the Gay Marriage laws were repelled in Californjia during the presidential election last year I was pretty pissed, but I didnt call it undemocratic, the people of California voted on the issue I disagree with the result but I wouldnt call it undemocratic, would I welcome another vote, yes of course, but I have not tried to create some imaginary high horse and shout out that it was undemocratic. I would respond the same way with the lisbon referendum.

No matter how many times you say it over and over with your fingers in your ears, it wasnt undemocratic.

I do accept the right of the government to exercise its powers but I can't and won't accept that it is morally justifiable. I don't think I can be blamed for that. I believe it's an affront to democracy.

Oh I see...

If they wanted to return to the issue in a few years that's fair enough, but before the result was even officially announced it was evident they had no intention of respecting the result.

Well by election day, the whole thing was a cluster f*ck thanks to a very weak yes campaign and a no campaign that brought up issues of conscription, chipping babies, state wide abortion and the creation of a Federal EU superstate. If I was to say anything about the *No* result is that with the exception of Sinn Fein they all suddenly disapeared after the result was in. Libertas went off on some pan european backpatting with other euroskeptics, Coir etc I havnt heard anything from them. What the hell was there to respect, there was only one suggestion from the no campaign on what to do next. All the rest just p*ssed off and left the aftermath as the governments mess to clean up.

Scofflaw

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm declaring the dismissal of the first referendum undemocratic. Let's be honest mate if the shoe was on the other foot you and others would do exactly the same.

I wonder. I would consider it unfair, certainly, much as this one is. Calling it 'undemocratic', though, is just a piece of propaganda labelling. If you want to vote No again, vote No again. If you want to vote No for the first time, vote No for the first time. It's a free vote, and it will express the will of the electorate. If that will has changed since last year, it's changed - short of claiming the vote is rigged, it's hard to see what makes it undemocratic.

Now if the first vote had been dismissed, I would certainly agree it was democratic. It was suggested that the treaty could be ratified through the Dáil, which would absolutely have been an undemocratic dismissal of the vote. As it is, referendum votes don't preclude or prejudge further referendum votes, and the government has the right to call referendums. Unfair? Sure. "Undemocratic"? Propaganda.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I do accept the right of the government to exercise its powers but I can't and won't accept that it is morally justifiable. I don't think I can be blamed for that. I believe it's an affront to democracy. If they wanted to return to the issue in a few years that's fair enough, but before the result was even officially announced it was evident they had no intention of respecting the result.

You mean they had no intention of accepting that vote as the final word.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well I wasn't trying to create a straw man argument. Just seems to me that there's a rather sweeping view about, largely media-driven perhaps, that at the first referendum most No voters didn't understand what they were voting for and that those who voted Yes did understand what they were voting for, and that therefore the original vote can be dismissed more easily.

It's as if we are considered to be not as enlightened as everybody else is.

Actually, I don't think either side had a monopoly on not knowing what they were voting on - and it's actually that joint ignorance of the issues that makes a second vote the more worthwhile.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Case in point when some chap on this thread commented 'you people again' after I made my views known. As if I'm some slack-jawed yokel whose views ought not to be taken seriously.

It's more that everything you're saying has been said before, really. Also the whole "respect the vote" thing was pretty much killed by Kathy Sinnot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

There were a couple of very solid No posters who as far as I know were under consideration, but unfortunately they've changed their position since the referendum.

I know I brought up once before recently but it is the most lovey dovey happiest thread ever to grace the politics forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311337

ionix5891

that must be a new low in the No campaign

attacking boards.ie moderators

jebus :rolleyes:

ro09

ionix5891 wrote: »

a lot of negativity has befallen this country lately so i am not holding my breath (but i will lodge my vote) and the usual suspect of Libertas, SF and COIR will be out in full force again, flinging mud and lies, and then bringing the debate to new lows :rolleyes:

tough times usually mean nuts get listened to more, so i am really worried, and hope people think objectively before voting and maybe check sites like this where we have some insightful debates and comments.

the fact alone that Europe are still helping Ireland to the tune of a few hundred billion in these tough times, should make people realize that united we stand and divided we fall.

Hold on a minute, I dont support any political party but the fact is WE ARE IN EUROPE AND STILL HAVING A RECESSION. we have fallen even though we are united? So when i hear people saying all the time the recession is bringing home to people the importance of being at the heart of Europe, I don't understand because we are at the centre of europe and still in recession, the recession was already happening at the time of the No Vote to Lisbon? So how could a Yes vote to lisbon make a difference to the current or future situations ? truthfully?

Scofflaw

ro09 wrote: »

Hold on a minute, I dont support any political party but the fact is WE ARE IN EUROPE AND STILL HAVING A RECESSION. we have fallen even though we are united? So when i hear people saying all the time the recession is bringing home to people the importance of being at the heart of Europe, I don't understand because we are at the centre of europe and still in recession, the recession was already happening at the time of the No Vote to Lisbon? So how could a Yes vote to lisbon make a difference to the current or future situations ? truthfully?

There's two bits in that - being part of Europe, and Lisbon. As far as Europe goes, it's an open and shut case - if we were facing into this recession on our own, then we wouldn't have had €120 billion in credit from the ECB over the last year, our currency would have come under assault from currency speculators immediately we entered recession (something that cost us £300m back in the Nineties - about a billion at today's rates), our ability to borrow money on the international markets would be seriously curtailed, we wouldn't have our largest export market, etc etc. So, being in Europe hasn't prevented us having a recession, but it has certainly softened the blow an enormous amount.

Lisbon is a different question. Any attempt to claim that voting Yes to Lisbon would have staved off the recession is obviously codswallop. Similarly, any claim that a Yes vote this time will suddenly reverse the recession is also codswallop. On the other hand, a No vote will damage both the EU (by condemning it to more years of uncertainty and creeping paralysis) and our relations with the EU, at a time when we can afford neither of those things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, I don't think either side had a monopoly on not knowing what they were voting on - and it's actually that joint ignorance of the issues that makes a second vote the more worthwhile.

I'd just like to add a little bit to that point. I feel the second vote is only worthwhil if there is a serious effort on behalf of both sides to accurately and honestly educate the electorate on the Treaty. There is precious little point in re-running it from the same position of ignorance!

Other than that I'm in agreement....

ionix5891

ro09 wrote: »

Hold on a minute, I dont support any political party but the fact is WE ARE IN EUROPE AND STILL HAVING A RECESSION. we have fallen even though we are united? So when i hear people saying all the time the recession is bringing home to people the importance of being at the heart of Europe, I don't understand because we are at the centre of europe and still in recession, the recession was already happening at the time of the No Vote to Lisbon? So how could a Yes vote to lisbon make a difference to the current or future situations ? truthfully?

See Iceland for an example of what happened to a small European country in the Atlantic that got into alot of debt with nothing to back them, now they are rearing to get into the euro to bring stability.

a pro europe vote (whether lisbon or elections) will send a positive message to our trading partner countries/investors in EU (and outside) and they will keep sending us money to keep our public sector/dole gravy train going for while longer, hopefully that would buy us time to cut the fat and increase productivity

being economically tied to likes of germany had its negatives (in form of low interest rates encouraging reckless lending) but there are more positives (such as the euro preventing our economy from doing an Iceland)

ixtlan

molloyjh wrote: »

I feel the second vote is only worthwhil if there is a serious effort on behalf of both sides to accurately and honestly educate the electorate on the Treaty. There is precious little point in re-running it from the same position of ignorance!

Indeed, of course it's hard to force the electorate to take things seriously and spend a few hours at least trying to understand how the EU works.

Unfortunately often people vote rather ilogically. For example, if we look at any constituency for the Euro elections, the pro-Lisbon parties will probably get 70%+ of the first preference votes? However a referendum will certainly not get 70%, so people are electing representatives to Europe whilst apparently not believing in what they believe. I spoke to a relative strongly determined to vote no to a second Lisbon, while declaring that Brian Crowley was a great guy who would absolutely get her number 1. ???!!! I intend to follow that up, but this scenario is repeated all over the country.

And I have to mention again, since it's come up again, and will in the future, there has always been a re-vote on a yes vote. It's called the next treaty. It comes along every 10 years or so. If Lisbon passes and you are annoyed about that then you need to speak to your EU MEPs over the next few years to get your concerns addressed in that next treaty. Unfortunately what the public and media seem to do is wait until after the treaty has been agreed to raise issues.

Ix

nesf

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd just like to add a little bit to that point. I feel the second vote is only worthwhil if there is a serious effort on behalf of both sides to accurately and honestly educate the electorate on the Treaty. There is precious little point in re-running it from the same position of ignorance!

I would hope that most people here would agree with you and see the need for the electorate to be informed before they vote on an issue as important as this.

ro09

ionix5891 wrote: »

See Iceland for an example of what happened to a small European country in the Atlantic that got into alot of debt with nothing to back them, now they are rearing to get into the euro to bring stability.

a pro europe vote (whether lisbon or elections) will send a positive message to our trading partner countries/investors in EU (and outside) and they will keep sending us money to keep our public sector/dole gravy train going for while longer, hopefully that would buy us time to cut the fat and increase productivity

being economically tied to likes of germany had its negatives (in form of low interest rates encouraging reckless lending) but there are more positives (such as the euro preventing our economy from doing an Iceland)

Just one point to note - We had many good years starting in the late 90s up to now and can you tell me how many home grown manufacturing Industries that are world players have we produced. The answer is none. It is great with all this foreign investment and all these foreign multinational setting up here, but where are they now when they get the sniff of recession? Ireland should by now have its own home grown manufacturing Industries that are world players. We shouldn't be depending so much on foreign investment. Take Germany for example they have loads of home grown Industries that are globally huge. On the other hand the most of our home manufacturing Industry was shut down at the start of the boom.?? The only world player we have is Guinness and that was established well before we even heared of europe.

Scofflaw

ro09 wrote: »

Just one point to note - We had many good years starting in the late 90s up to now and can you tell me how many home grown manufacturing Industries that are world players have we produced. The answer is none. It is great with all this foreign investment and all these foreign multinational setting up here, but where are they now when they get the sniff of recession? Ireland should by now have its own home grown manufacturing Industries that are world players. We shouldn't be depending so much on foreign investment. Take Germany for example they have loads of home grown Industries that are globally huge. On the other hand the most of our home manufacturing Industry was shut down at the start of the boom.?? The only world player we have is Guinness and that was established well before we even heared of europe.

Funnily enough, we had a dozen years of low interest rates and growing prosperity - the best time in the world to start a new business or expand an existing one. Instead, we put the money and the effort into houses, houses, and more houses, while pushing our multinationals and the civil service to give us ever higher wages to pay for them.

The result is a dearth of Irish businesses, an uncompetitive environment for the MNCs, and a civil service wage bill we can't afford. It's all related.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Scofflaw wrote: »

Funnily enough, we had a dozen years of low interest rates and growing prosperity - the best time in the world to start a new business or expand an existing one. Instead, we put the money and the effort into houses, houses, and more houses, while pushing our multinationals and the civil service to give us ever higher wages to pay for them.

The result is a dearth of Irish businesses, an uncompetitive environment for the MNCs, and a civil service wage bill we can't afford. It's all related.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A situation made all the more irritating as we've never been more educated as a nation, in regards to R&D. From this Irish Times article yesterday:

wrote:

The combined force of university and industry research is leading to improved healthcare, communication, food quality, and much more. The work of our researchers is increasingly recognised on the global stage. This can be seen in our research output and its scientific impact. For example, the number of papers produced in the EU increased by 25 per cent since the 1990s, whereas Irish research output grew by 200 per cent. In citations per paper, Ireland has moved from 36th in the world in 2003 to 19th in 2008. These advances are reflected in the growing standing of our universities in the international rankings.

ionix5891

Scofflaw wrote: »

Funnily enough, we had a dozen years of low interest rates and growing prosperity - the best time in the world to start a new business or expand an existing one. Instead, we put the money and the effort into houses, houses, and more houses, while pushing our multinationals and the civil service to give us ever higher wages to pay for them.

The result is a dearth of Irish businesses, an uncompetitive environment for the MNCs, and a civil service wage bill we can't afford. It's all related.

cordially,
Scofflaw

some of us did start a business

and are the ones paying the brunt of the taxes now

as for the no homegrown industries point raised, there are plenty of small to medium sized companies in Ireland that are "homegrown"

and large ones that where just on the business news few mins ago such as Ryanair

hell ive a friend in Germany and when I told her about issues here in Ireland, she said they are not doing much better with huge factories being shut, we even had a joke that they love our "kerry-whatever" butter


yes alot of money was squandered and went into useless sectors such as construction, but we should be proud of the cheap third level university system we have for example, as graduate/postgraduate and later research engineer i got to meet alot of very bright people, and got to work for companies ranging from ESB to small startups, there are plenty of smart people in this country and they did make the best of the boom, and are the ones still employed now and paying taxes.

the language of this new poster (we have loads of them lately here) sounds alot like SF spiel, whose interest is to make things appear much worse in order to gain power, lets remain objective here people and not rewrite history without some facts

.

nesf

ionix5891 wrote: »

hell ive a friend in Germany and when I told her about issues here in Ireland, she said they are not doing much better with huge factories being shut, we even had a joke that they love our "kerry-whatever" butter

As an anecdotal aside, I've heard from people working with the Irish Dairy Council that they've had great success exporting Irish foodstuffs and intermediaries like whey to the Far East. Ireland has an excellent international brand with respect to dairy. Christ, Irish butter has had that reputation since the 19th century when Cork was the export port for huge quantities of it internationally!

I'd concur that too much money was squandered in the Irish housing market but it's inaccurate to say that Irish business in other sectors hasn't been doing well during the Tiger years.

sink

ro09 wrote: »

Just one point to note - We had many good years starting in the late 90s up to now and can you tell me how many home grown manufacturing Industries that are world players have we produced. The answer is none.

Ever so slightly wrong there, Ireland has some very major global players in a multitude of industries. I can name quiet a few off the top of my head.

CRH - one of the largest construction supply companies in the world with revenues of over $20bn. With 92,000 employees worldwide it is by far the biggest Irish owned multinational

Kerry Group - one of the worlds largest food ingredient suppliers, it's retail product division (e.g. Kerry gold) is dwarfed by it's ingredients supplies division, supply many of the worlds leading food manufacturers. It's has a annual global revenue of almost €5bn and employs over 20,000 people worldwide.

Elán - A major drug manufacturer

Fyffes - A leading brand of bananas

Ryanair - Europes largest airline

C&C - A major drinks manufacturer

And they are just some of the largest. There are many small - medium exporters in the country with markets globally. I didn't even include Guiness as it is no longer Irish owned, it's owned by Diageo which is British.

Kickaha

People need to remember were not actually voting on whether to accept or reject the Lisbon treaty.
People actually voting on such things is bad let the literate ones decide we just put in our "X".
Were voting on whether we should change our constitution to allow the lisbon treaty to be ratified.
It took me awhile to get hold of the wording prior to polling day last time but in essence what I read was "Do you accept a change to the constitution to enable the lisbon treaty to come into effect AND to allow any further amendments to the constitution that may be deemed necessary".
Sort of a cover all catch all.."Hey you elected us,we decided this was good,just sign yes and we wont have to rerun anymore brain taxing referendums on yas and remember super Bertie managed to cobble together a version of the same thing people across europe had already rejected,wow they must be as dumb as you guys"

There is no "If you vote yes theres a pot of EU structural funds just waitin to be picked up"..
or the implied "Vote yes n be at the heart of Europe er like theres a load of cash for Ireland again.. no there isnt "
We get what were entitled too, Yes or No.
Im not even sure why there is there is this push for a united Europe .EEC was fine Economic cooperation oh and no border controls and price equalistion across Europe .Worked really well eh.
We vote yes to constitutional change or we vote no to constitutional change.
The good news is we can dispense with the Dail since 80% of our legislation comes from Europe already .Pass the constitutional change and we should be able to get that to 95%+ and we can leave one guy with a rubber stamp in the dail since the rest would only be generating greenhouse gases.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Kickaha wrote: »

It took me awhile to get hold of the wording prior to polling day last time but in essence what I read was "Do you accept a change to the constitution to enable the lisbon treaty to come into effect AND to allow any further amendments to the constitution that may be deemed necessary".

What's your source on this?
FYI here is the actual wording of the constitutional change
link

Kickaha wrote: »

The good news is we can dispense with the Dail since 80% of our legislation comes from Europe already .Pass the constitutional change and we should be able to get that to 95%+

That is not true, as has been discussed to death in this very forum.

Please either back up your statements or retract them.