Pro Lisbon and support for the current government.

BlitzKrieg

I just want to shoot down a misconception that keeps propping up in threads.

Far too often anyone who supports Lisbon gets bundled in with Fianna Fail and the current government's failings and we are expected to defend said government's actions.

I think you'd find that the majority of Lisbon supporters on this forum would point to the government for the failings of the first referendum, they're inability to educate voters on the treaty until it was too late and some choice PR moments led to a substantial amount of confusion.

So just so that there is something that can be pointed to in future threads and this issue pops up again. Lets hear a call out to those who support Lisbon but do not support the current government.


I support the Lisbon Treaty, I do not support the Fianna Fail party.

turgon

With the lack of Treaty reasons to vote No, it is unfortunate the No-side use FF mismanagement as a reason to vote No, or as a tool to discredit Yes side reasoning.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I want FF out of government ASAP, and I would have preferred if it happened before the Lisbon vote.

I will be voting 'yes' to Lisbon, because it's the right thing for the EU, and Ireland, in my opinion.

storinius

I concur with other posters here. FF have mismanged the economy, prioritised blasphemy legislation at a time when the Church has never been in worse standing in our country, and COMPLETELY messed up the first Lisbon campaign.

I will be voting YES in October, and campaigning for a YES vote between now and then. And all the while remaining unimpressed with FF.

Sage'sMama

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

BlitzKrieg

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

Well if they are able to argue the points of the treaty without issue and back up the arguments with facts then that would be a serious misconception.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sage'sMama wrote: »

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

Actually I think that's a misconception about what 'yes' voters think about 'no' voters. But feel free to start a thread 'I'm voting no and I'm not stupid'.

oscarBravo

Sage'sMama wrote: »

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

Who said that?

K-9

FF. FG and Labour voters did not vote along party lines in the Referendum. The only party who did was SF with about 87% voting No.

Sage'sMama

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually I think that's a misconception about what 'yes' voters think about 'no' voters. But feel free to start a thread 'I'm voting no and I'm not stupid'.

Where did I state i'm a no voter???

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sage'sMama wrote: »

Where did I state i'm a no voter???

You didn't, and assuming you're not, there's still nothing to prevent you starting such a thread, instead of dragging this one off topic.

oscarBravo

I'm still wondering who said that all "no" voters are stupid.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still wondering who said that all "no" voters are stupid.

No voters did, as far as I can see, but not without help. We started with "many people voted No because they lacked information about the Treaty". That was then too often shortened to "many people voted No out of ignorance", often by Yes proponents. From there it was a short step to assuming "ignorance" meant "stupidity".

A case of handing 'professional victims' something they could easily make a stick out of. To be fair, though, there were plenty of No people who didn't need the middle step at all, and went straight from the survey findings that 'lack of information' played a big part straight to "they're calling us stupid!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

No voters did, as far as I can see, but not without help. We started with "many people voted No because they lacked information about the Treaty". That was then too often shortened to "many people voted No out of ignorance", often by Yes proponents. From there it was a short step to assuming "ignorance" meant "stupidity".

A case of handing 'professional victims' something they could easily make a stick out of. To be fair, though, there were plenty of No people who didn't need the middle step at all, and went straight from the survey findings that 'lack of information' played a big part straight to "they're calling us stupid!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Think there was a survey published just after by some University boffins saying "well educated" people tended to vote Yes. The boffins of course believe people who have 3rd level qualifications are better educated. Typical!

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No voters did, as far as I can see, but not without help. We started with "many people voted No because they lacked information about the Treaty". That was then too often shortened to "many people voted No out of ignorance", often by Yes proponents. From there it was a short step to assuming "ignorance" meant "stupidity".

A case of handing 'professional victims' something they could easily make a stick out of. To be fair, though, there were plenty of No people who didn't need the middle step at all, and went straight from the survey findings that 'lack of information' played a big part straight to "they're calling us stupid!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would contend that ignorance was at least as much a factor on the yes side as on the no side. In any case, the govt research coralled people into choosing certain motivations for their vote. Only 22% of no voters in the RTE exit poll from the euro-elections cited lack of information/familiarity. In general, the yes side in the media have preferred to sell Lisbon on the basis of the EU in general having been beneficial, rather than Article this or that, unlike the no side. Surely the actual contents of the Treaty is more pertinant to this debate than the benefits or otherwise of EU membership? After all, this is a referendum on a treaty, not on EU membership.

BlitzKrieg

n general, the yes side in the media have preferred to sell Lisbon on the basis of the EU in general having been beneficial, rather than Article this or that, unlike the no side.

That makes me laugh
. As stated in the op I personnally and I know a number of other posters here felt the *good for us good for europe* campaign by the governement was awful. This is the very point of this thread, we are putting a line between US and the government. Here we do discuss the treaty, and as far as I have seen everytime we discuss the details of the treaty Scafflow, myself, Pope, Sink etc tend to show again and again that we know the treaty pretty damn well.

AuRevoir

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Here we do discuss the treaty, and as far as I have seen everytime we discuss the details of the treaty Scafflow, myself, Pope, Sink etc tend to show again and again that we know the treaty pretty damn well.

From a YES point of view of course & unsurprisingly enough never seem to mention the bad parts of the treaty in any of your discussions.

BlitzKrieg

well we seem to be lacking an alternative point of view at the moment, instead its out of context quotations of politics and sabre rattling for nationalism or european democracy (sometimes both at the same time which is rather strange)

Hitman Actual

AuRevoir wrote: »

From a YES point of view of course.;)

The point is, most of the Yes-side regulars here refer to the Treaty directly in their pro-Lisbon arguments, while the majority of No arguments are based on the second referendum being an affront to democracy.

AuRevoir wrote: »

& unsurprisingly enough never seem to mention the bad parts of the treaty in any of your discussions.

What bad parts of the Treaty are you referring to? Post them up here and we'll argue them with you. Unfortunately, there have been very few Treaty-based No-side arguments on here.

BlitzKrieg

Well personnally I dislike the return of the commissioners for every state element in lisbon 2, that has disapointed me quite a bit, but I am willing to live with it if it means Lisbon 2 gets passed rather then nothing at all.

PopeBuckfastXVI

AuRevoir wrote: »

From a YES point of view of course & unsurprisingly enough never seem to mention the bad parts of the treaty in any of your discussions.

Feel free to provide an alternative viewpoint AuRevoir. I'm not here to argue against Lisbon, I want it to pass, I personally can't see too much bad in it, and certainly nothing that would make me vote 'No' or ask someone else to vote 'No'.

I am not the referendum commission, I don't have to be neutral, I just try my best to be truthful.

smithcity

It seems to me that a lot of people are taking it personally when somebody has a differing opinion on the Lisbon treaty.
Its as though many of us can't accept that other people can be on the opposite side of debate without being morally compromised in some way...
It all degenerates into, "You're calling us stupid!"...
Im guilty of it myself, taking other peoples arguements as personal attacks.

But that's mostly cos they're stupid for disagreeing with me

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

But that's mostly cos they're stupid for disagreeing with me

Lol - I find the same thing

Hitman Actual

smithcity wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of people are taking it personally when somebody has a differing opinion on the Lisbon treaty.

It depends what you mean by differing opinions, though. For example, I have no problem with the defence implications of the Treaty, while someone else might not like that part at all. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on that score. But all you tend to get from the No side is "democracy this" and "guarantees not legally-binding that", and I have complete contempt for that stance. People should be basing their decision on the Treaty, nothing else.

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's also quite difficult to not appear blunt when you are debunking the same myth for the nth time.

You forget that it might be the first time the poster has posted in the forum, and that they might actually be someone who has been taken in by the myth, rather than somebody perpetuating it deviously.

Scofflaw

We're wandering off-topic slightly...

moderately,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

You have to admire the subtle little spin on this- "Vote No to keep credit away from FF". You're really pulling out all the stops.

One thing I would hope from a Yes-side perspective, though, is that FG and Labour are allowed to be at the forefront of the Yes campaign. I'd be worried that the backlash against FF hasn't been fully exhausted in the local/Euro's last month.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

Is this the new tactic to replace Libertas?

Have to say, it is very smart. Vote No, to signal your disgust at FF.

A Yes to Lisbon is a Yes to Cowen and FF.

Love the spin.

Very clever politics. Not very democratic , but love the FF tactics.

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

Future Taoiseach,
Are you seriously suggesting that we vote NO to Lisbon just to get rid of FF, if you want to get rid of FF do it DIRECTLY in a General Election, Lisbon is much too important to waste on party politics.

Your post brings to mind the expressions:
-Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
-Cutting off your nose to spite your face

For the record I am not a fan of FF and would be happy to vote them out at the next GE, however I will be voting YES, YES, YES to Lisbon (ok if I had 3 votes I would).

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote: »

Future Taoiseach,
Are you seriously suggesting that we vote NO to Lisbon just to get rid of FF, if you want to get rid of FF do it DIRECTLY in a General Election, Lisbon is much too important to waste on party politics.

Your post brings to mind the expressions:
-Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
-Cutting off your nose to spite your face

For the record I am not a fan of FF and would be happy to vote them out at the next GE, however I will be voting YES, YES, YES to Lisbon (ok if I had 3 votes I would).

The economy cannot take another 3 years of this dithering, indecisive leadership of the present Taoiseach. I firmly believe his removal as Taoiseach would, if replaced by a more decisive figure, potentially lead us out of recession sooner than would otherwise be the case. I don't agree with you that voting no would be to cut off our nose despite our face, because I have seen no evidence that voting for Lisbon would assist the economy. Have you any such evidence? Note that since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution in 2005, unemployment has soared to 18%.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The economy cannot take another 3 years of this dithering, indecisive leadership of the present Taoiseach. I firmly believe his removal as Taoiseach would, if replaced by a more decisive figure, potentially lead us out of recession sooner than would otherwise be the case. I don't agree with you that voting no would be to cut off our nose despite our face, because I have seen no evidence that voting for Lisbon would assist the economy. Have you any such evidence? Note that since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution in 2005, unemployment has soared to 18%.

Ah! And are you the source of that particularly fatuous comparison? Another poster here trotted it out, but it was obviously not his, and he backed away from it.

You're claiming - correct me if I'm wrong - that because the Spanish voted Yes - in 2005 - to the EU Constitution - which never came into effect - that their unemployment rate is high 4 years later?

Are you really honest to God cross your heart putting that forward as a logical proposition? And is that your own invention?

with bated breath,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah! And are you the source of that particularly fatuous comparison? Another poster here trotted it out, but it was obviously not his, and he backed away from it.

You're claiming - correct me if I'm wrong - that because the Spanish voted Yes - in 2005 - to the EU Constitution - which never came into effect - that their unemployment rate is high 4 years later?

Are you really honest to God cross your heart putting that forward as a logical proposition? And is that your own invention?

with bated breath,
Scofflaw

In fairness, I don't think it was him, though I couldn't be bothered reading the Politics.ie thread on leaving the Euro again.


There are too many holes in comparing Spain for somebody like FT to keep repeating it!

Removing Cowen is crap, when the 2 alternatives have exactly the same policy on Lisbon.

Posters who are undecided should bear in mind that some want a No to Lisbon at all costs. Vote No to remove Cowen, is one of the reasons thrown out there. The opposition are pro Lisbon too.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah! And are you the source of that particularly fatuous comparison? Another poster here trotted it out, but it was obviously not his, and he backed away from it.

You're claiming - correct me if I'm wrong - that because the Spanish voted Yes - in 2005 - to the EU Constitution - which never came into effect - that their unemployment rate is high 4 years later?

Are you really honest to God cross your heart putting that forward as a logical proposition? And is that your own invention?

with bated breath,
Scofflaw

The point I am making is largely the inverse of the supposed economic argument for voting for Lisbon. The case is being made, without specific evidence being offered in its defence, by the parties that voting yes is necessary for the salvation of the Irish economy. Some weeks ago Martin Mansergh was on the radio making this argument. It seems that as far as the Dail parties are concerned, if the Irish economy is performing well in an EU referendum campaign, that's a reason to vote yes, whereas when the economy is performing poorly, that too (e.g. 1987/1992/now) is a reason to vote yes, for the supposed assistance the EU will grant to us. This argument ignores the fact that as a party to a currency union, the ECB is not going to allow the Irish financial system to go down. To do so would spook the financial markets as to the durability of monetary-union as suggested by an apparent lack of commitment by the ECJ to support Eurozone financial institutions.

It is my firm belief that if the current Irish economic crisis can be invoked in support of a yes vote, then the current Spanish economic crisis has an equal right to be invoked in support of a no vote. After all, Bertie and Cowen admitted Lisbon is 90-95% the same provisions as contained in the EU Constitution. I would argue that while the dominant cause of the recession is caused by global factors, that FDI into a country depends to a considerable extent on an independent taxation policy, and I am not reassured by the "guarantees" because they state that they do not amend the Lisbon Treaty, and that consequently, the Lisbon Treaty supersedes them in the legal-sense.

BlitzKrieg

It is my firm belief that if the current Irish economic crisis can be invoked in support of a yes vote, then the current Spanish economic crisis has an equal right to be invoked in support of a no vote.

But the logic captain...It does not work?

If the Spanish yes vote had led to the implementation of the European constitution and it had actually came into effect and the unemployment level shot up. Then yes it is a working argument.

But the european constitution has not come into effect, and Lisbon (which as everyone keeps harping on about has 90-95% of the constitution's elements in it) has not come into effect either therefore nothing that the spanish voted yes ever materialised.

If anything this insane comparison can be only used as a *what if* scenario if the constitution had come into effect would spain's unemployment level had dropped? We dont know. We could get some economists in to discuss it and maybe some might say no it would not have dropped as severely, or that its irrelevent. In the end you'll just end up handing firepower over to the yes side rather then the no side because the crux of the issue is still that Despite voting yes the treaty was not implemented and spains unemployment fiqures went up in the following years.

View

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Despite voting yes the treaty was not implemented and spains unemployment fiqures went up in the following years.

Indeed, the whole current economic crisis across the EU is a result of the "wrath of God" because we didn't implement the EU Constitution.

Robert Schuman has apparently been nominated for canonisation and, as such, the Yes side has a hot-line to heaven!

BlitzKrieg

hence

its a pointless *what if* scenario and is irrelevent to the debate.

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The economy cannot take another 3 years of this dithering, indecisive leadership of the present Taoiseach. I firmly believe his removal as Taoiseach would, if replaced by a more decisive figure, potentially lead us out of recession sooner than would otherwise be the case. I don't agree with you that voting no would be to cut off our nose despite our face, because I have seen no evidence that voting for Lisbon would assist the economy. Have you any such evidence? Note that since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution in 2005, unemployment has soared to 18%.

The main opposition parties are all pro Lisbon and a NO vote would be just as demotivating and disruptive to them in trying to solve our economic problems, so unless you have some serious reservations about the treaty, voting YES will help the government (current or future) to tackle the crisis.

You asked for evidence that voting for Lisbon would help the economy… To be honest nobody can be 100 % sure what effect a yes or no vote will have on the economy but nonetheless we have to vote one way or the other and on the balance of probabilities I believe that voting YES is far better than voting NO. One reason was presented above, another reason is that every business organization that I know of, including IBEC, SFA, IFA, ISA, AMCHAM, Dublin & Cork chambers of commerce etc (see business alliance for Europe and other sites) supports a YES vote, I know of none that supports a NO; the multinational sector are responsible for over 80% of our exports and again I know of no multinational that supports a NO…

Your last comment with regard to Spain should have a smilie face at the end of it, i.e. not to be taken seriously; anyway it’s since been debunked categorically by Scofflaw, Blitzkrieg and View (humourously).


BTW, would the reason you want the taoiseach out have something to do with your name:-)

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The point I am making is largely the inverse of the supposed economic argument for voting for Lisbon. The case is being made, without specific evidence being offered in its defence, by the parties that voting yes is necessary for the salvation of the Irish economy. Some weeks ago Martin Mansergh was on the radio making this argument. It seems that as far as the Dail parties are concerned, if the Irish economy is performing well in an EU referendum campaign, that's a reason to vote yes, whereas when the economy is performing poorly, that too (e.g. 1987/1992/now) is a reason to vote yes, for the supposed assistance the EU will grant to us. This argument ignores the fact that as a party to a currency union, the ECB is not going to allow the Irish financial system to go down. To do so would spook the financial markets as to the durability of monetary-union as suggested by an apparent lack of commitment by the ECJ to support Eurozone financial institutions.

It is my firm belief that if the current Irish economic crisis can be invoked in support of a yes vote, then the current Spanish economic crisis has an equal right to be invoked in support of a no vote. After all, Bertie and Cowen admitted Lisbon is 90-95% the same provisions as contained in the EU Constitution. I would argue that while the dominant cause of the recession is caused by global factors, that FDI into a country depends to a considerable extent on an independent taxation policy, and I am not reassured by the "guarantees" because they state that they do not amend the Lisbon Treaty, and that consequently, the Lisbon Treaty supersedes them in the legal-sense.

I'm extremely sorry for you, and for logic more generally, if you really do "firmly believe" that you can draw a causal connection between a vote on something that never came into force, and an unrelated social variable 4 years later.

Let's try and start you on the road to recovery. Can you tell me what happened to the Spanish unemployment rate in 2006?

concerned,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote:

The main opposition parties are all pro Lisbon and a NO vote would be just as demotivating and disruptive to them in trying to solve our economic problems, so unless you have some serious reservations about the treaty, voting YES will help the government (current or future) to tackle the crisis.

You asked for evidence that voting for Lisbon would help the economy… To be honest nobody can be 100 % sure what effect a yes or no vote will have on the economy but nonetheless we have to vote one way or the other and on the balance of probabilities I believe that voting YES is far better than voting NO. One reason was presented above, another reason is that every business organization that I know of, including IBEC, SFA, IFA, ISA, AMCHAM, Dublin & Cork chambers of commerce etc (see business alliance for Europe and other sites) supports a YES vote, I know of none that supports a NO; the multinational sector are responsible for over 80% of our exports and again I know of no multinational that supports a NO…

There is a lot of patronage in the EU institutions which must account for one reason why the elites of business/union etc. orgs and Opposition party politicians are supporting Lisbon. You need to bear in mind that these orgs don't ballot their members on Lisbon, notably the CPSU union. What we are essentially dealing with are the elites who lead these organisations supporting Lisbon, for reasons that may not become clear for some years yet. Have you forgotten why Grattan's Parliament voted for the Act of Union?

When 95% of the politicians are supporting something, that should spark cynicism and suspicion rather than confidence in the proposition they are supporting. What's in it for them? Patronage in Brussels perhaps?

Scofflaw wrote:

Let's try and start you on the road to recovery. Can you tell me what happened to the Spanish unemployment rate in 2006?

This graph shows the surge in unemployment since the yes vote. The underlying reality though is that unemployment has risen dramatically since the yes vote, despite oscillations since then. It takes time for events to feed into an economy. Since 2005, it has risen from 11% to almost 18%.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is a lot of patronage in the EU institutions which must account for one reason why the elites of business/union etc. orgs and Opposition party politicians are supporting Lisbon. You need to bear in mind that these orgs don't ballot their members on Lisbon, notably the CPSU union. What we are essentially dealing with are the elites who lead these organisations supporting Lisbon, for reasons that may not become clear for some years yet. Have you forgotten why Grattan's Parliament voted for the Act of Union?

When 95% of the politicians are supporting something, that should spark cynicism and suspicion rather than confidence in the proposition they are supporting. What's in it for them? Patronage in Brussels perhaps?

Hm. Let's see - 95% (maybe more) of our politicians supported the abolition of the death penalty. What was in that for them, do you think?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

This graph shows the surge in unemployment since the yes vote. The underlying reality though is that unemployment has risen dramatically since the yes vote, despite oscillations since then. It takes time for events to feed into an economy. Since 2005, it has risen from 11% to almost 18%.

For heaven's sake! That graph clearly shows unemployment continuing to fall for several years after the vote - it doesn't start to rise until 2008!

I can't believe someone is daft enough to actually claim this. Do you understand causality? Or do you just claim whatever comes into your head and assume the facts support it? Because I have to say, you seem to be happily presenting 'evidence' for your claim that's utter nonsense.

Let me just check this again, because I'm really having difficulty believing it. Here's the Spanish unemployment rate, year by year:

Year|Unemployment rate|Percent Change|Date of Information|Events
2003|11.30 %||2002|-
2004|11.30 %|0.00 %|2003|-
2005|10.40 %|-7.96 %|2004|-
2006|9.20 %|-11.54 %|2005|Spanish Vote Yes
2007|8.10 %|-11.96 %|2006|-
2008|8.30 %|2.47 %|2007|-
2008|11.3 %|36 %|2008|-
2009|17.3 %|53 %|2009|boards.ie poster claims this rate is the result of the Yes vote in 2005

Most bizarre claim ever?

amazed,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw, I'd avoid arguing with FT to be honest. I (and others) have been through this with him already on politics.ie. I've provided him the following links 3 days ago in direct response to him:

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/economics-and-demography/spains-unemployment-continues-to-climb-as-the-economy-contracts/
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0203/breaking19.htm
http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/2008/01/unemployment-rises-in-spain.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm1838.cfm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/worldbusiness/04specon.html?_r=1

All of these show his point to be downright wrong. Add that to the fact that he is linking a Yes vote on something that was never implemented (and therefore makes their vote wholly irrelevant) to the problems in Spain and it's evidence enough that the argument is not just deeply flawed, but completely and utterly wrong. Yet he's still here (and on politics.ie) making the same claim.

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is a lot of patronage in the EU institutions which must account for one reason why the elites of business/union etc. orgs and Opposition party politicians are supporting Lisbon. You need to bear in mind that these orgs don't ballot their members on Lisbon, notably the CPSU union. What we are essentially dealing with are the elites who lead these organisations supporting Lisbon, for reasons that may not become clear for some years yet. Have you forgotten why Grattan's Parliament voted for the Act of Union?

When 95% of the politicians are supporting something, that should spark cynicism and suspicion rather than confidence in the proposition they are supporting. What's in it for them? Patronage in Brussels perhaps?

Of course there is patronage in business and politics and we should all strive to eliminate it but not everybody is guilty of it and certainly not all politicians and business leaders, in fact, we have no idea what percentage of their actions are due to patronage and what percentage is done in the public interest. So we should not throw out a treaty whose acceptance is clearly good for the Irish economy because of unquantifiable patronage, as I said before we have to be wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Assuming that there will not be a revolution before October (or should that be an October Revolution) in which all patronage and elitism is liquidated:-), then from a purely managerial, motivational point of view, does a YES vote not make it easier for the government (current or future) to solve our economic problems? And does it not make it easier for business to sell their goods in Europe and attract further investment?

Cynicism is a good trait but not blind cynicism; if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a …..

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hm. Let's see - 95% (maybe more) of our politicians supported the abolition of the death penalty. What was in that for them, do you think?



For heaven's sake! That graph clearly shows unemployment continuing to fall for several years after the vote - it doesn't start to rise until 2008!

I can't believe someone is daft enough to actually claim this. Do you understand causality? Or do you just claim whatever comes into your head and assume the facts support it? Because I have to say, you seem to be happily presenting 'evidence' for your claim that's utter nonsense.

Let me just check this again, because I'm really having difficulty believing it. Here's the Spanish unemployment rate, year by year:

Year|Unemployment rate|Percent Change|Date of Information|Events
2003|11.30 %||2002|-
2004|11.30 %|0.00 %|2003|-
2005|10.40 %|-7.96 %|2004|-
2006|9.20 %|-11.54 %|2005|Spanish Vote Yes
2007|8.10 %|-11.96 %|2006|-
2008|8.30 %|2.47 %|2007|-
2008|11.3 %|36 %|2008|-
2009|17.3 %|53 %|2009|boards.ie poster claims this rate is the result of the Yes vote in 2005
Most bizarre claim ever?

amazed,
Scofflaw

It can still be argued that the 18% unemployment was a longterm result of the yes vote. It takes events some time to feed into domestic economies. For example, it takes 18 months for a change in interest rates to feed into an economy. In a global recession, it is all the more crucial for a country to retain control of its taxation system.

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It can still be argued that the 18% unemployment was a longterm result of the yes vote. It takes events some time to feed into domestic economies.

Anything can be argued, the question is - is it a credible argument that anyone sane should pay attention to?

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

Anything can be argued, the question is - is it a credible argument that anyone sane should pay attention to?

Is it any less credible than the attempts by the politicians to link the global recession to the no vote?

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Is it any less credible than the attempts by the politicians to link the global recession to the no vote?

Yes, because of the considerable time scale involved between the Spanish Yes vote and their current troubles.

On the other hand, in Ireland's case, it was clear that a recession was on its way (the US was already in one and Ireland is heavily dependent on US investment). The No vote put a considerable question-mark over what was going on with Ireland, and that didn't help Ireland's international credibility - In times of trouble, investors look for certainty, not risk, in their dealings.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It can still be argued that the 18% unemployment was a longterm result of the yes vote.

It can be argued that 2 + 2 equals 5.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It takes events some time to feed into domestic economies. For example, it takes 18 months for a change in interest rates to feed into an economy.

Indeed, but a change in interest rates is a real event. A vote for something that never happened, on the other hand, is what we might characterise as a 'notional' event without any consequences.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In a global recession, it is all the more crucial for a country to retain control of its taxation system.

What? Where did this come from? What possible relevance is it supposed to have to the bizarre claims you're currently making?

molloyjh wrote:

Scofflaw, I'd avoid arguing with FT to be honest. I (and others) have been through this with him already on politics.ie. I've provided him the following links 3 days ago in direct response to him:

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/econo...omy-contracts/
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking19.htm
http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/...-in-spain.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm1838.cfm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/bu...econ.html?_r=1

All of these show his point to be downright wrong. Add that to the fact that he is linking a Yes vote on something that was never implemented (and therefore makes their vote wholly irrelevant) to the problems in Spain and it's evidence enough that the argument is not just deeply flawed, but completely and utterly wrong. Yet he's still here (and on politics.ie) making the same claim.

I suppose that if one is prepared to make a claim like this in the first place, one can hardly be persuaded out of it by logic. There's a certain train-wreck fascination to it, though - I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre and wrong-headed claim outside the Creationism thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a certain train-wreck fascination to it, though - I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre and wrong-headed claim outside the Creationism thread.

Have you heard the one where ratifying Lisbon will force us to join NATO?

molloyjh

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It can still be argued that the 18% unemployment was a longterm result of the yes vote. It takes events some time to feed into domestic economies. For example, it takes 18 months for a change in interest rates to feed into an economy. In a global recession, it is all the more crucial for a country to retain control of its taxation system.

Oh here we go again re the taxation claims! This should be good. Are you going to try and claim that corporate tax could be charged on the sale of goods again? Or that corporate tax could be modified to become an indirect tax?

Our taxation system is not under any threat from Lisbon and this has been shown numerous times at this stage. As for the impacts of the Yes to the EU Constitution in Spain there could not have been any impacts as the Constitution never came into force and therefore the Yes may just as well have been a No. Additionally I have also provided links telling you exactly what did cause their huge increase in unemployment. Is there a reason you've ignored them not once, but twice?

PopeBuckfastXVI

molloyjh wrote: »

Is there a reason you've ignored them not once, but twice?

Perhaps because they contradict a ridiculously fallacious 'argument' he's clinging to like a security blanket?