Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Neither of those is the case. We voted no, had our issues addressed and voted yes.

Well your certainly getting on board with Scoffaw and putting the spin into operation. But I guess someone has to.

What is that saying, we have been weighed, we have been measured and we have been found wanting.

Remember the comments of the German ambassador here only two years ago. I'll dig out a reference later. But we have given a full scale display from both sides now of how low we will sink to borrow money.

fligedlyflick

sam, did you have issues with the first treaty and were they addressed or are you speaking again for the population

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

sam, did you have issues with the first treaty and were they addressed or are you speaking again for the population

I didn't really have issues with the first treaty because I knew the last time that they were all lies and I understand that the commissioners don't represent their countries. I'm speaking for the people who took part in a national survey, who gave as their reasons those that were addressed by the guarantees. I'm sure there were a lot of people who swung because of the economy but equally, anyone who thought our corporation tax was at risk, and anecdotally that was a lot of people, had no reason to vote no this time, that is unless they were one of those people who desperately tried to find some other meaning to the phrase "the decision is legally binding"

dearg lady

tbh, I don't see a major issue with holding the referendum again, everyone still had the oppurtunity to cast their vote again, and people are allowed to change their minds! I voted no both times, and I'm incredibly disappointed with the result. I don't think that holding it twice makes it soemhow less democratic, but I am fearful now about what the future holds.

fligedlyflick

an awful lot swung because of the economy.
when fianna fail had their buddy party in farmleigh seeking advice on the recession and filtering comments to the media it wrongly told people that we are in recession because of the last no vote.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't really have issues with the first treaty because I knew the last time that they were all lies and I understand that the commissioners don't represent their countries. I'm speaking for the people who took part in a national survey, who gave as their reasons those that were addressed by the guarantees. I'm sure there were a lot of people who swung because of the economy but equally, anyone who thought our corporation tax was at risk, and anecdotally that was a lot of people, had no reason to vote no this time, that is unless they were one of those people who desperately tried to find some other meaning to the phrase "the decision is legally binding"

This may not belong here, but does our taxation guarantee give us any advantages. In an economic sense do we have an advantage to introduce taxes at bargain basement levels. Europe won't allow it everywhere but they've given us specific guarantees that would be entirely within character to exploit.

Seems like an opportunity in the face of our dire predicament. Or will we negotiate that away to borrow some more money from the ECB.

Long Onion

It looks, from the poll, as if we don't have a balanced cross section of society on Boards, I must check the exit poll poll thread ...



Edit: Me and my big mouth ...

rumour

Long Onion wrote: »

It looks, from the poll, as if we don't have a balanced cross section of society on Boards, I must check the exit poll poll thread ...

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

meditraitor

Long Onion wrote: »

It looks, from the poll, as if we don't have a balanced cross section of society on Boards, I must check the exit poll poll thread ...

The poll was hijacked by the p******s.ie no campaign high jinks. It could never have been representative.

Scofflaw

Elmo wrote: »

But we would have lost our commissioner and we are now and will be part of the EDA (which comes under this treaty in far more respects then before) which will distribute arms to all European armies some for war others for "peace" missions. And weather you like it or not over the coming years Ireland will have to increase military spending to help improve its military, that is if the government are all that concerned about it, John O'Doughue might want to go on a trip first.

1. we're already "part of" the EDA, and have been since it was founded in 2004.

2. we're not required to increase military spending at all:

[Lisbon] does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

Elmo wrote: »

And to be honest who is to say that I agree with a Foreign Affairs Ambassador for the EU. If I don't agree with it and you do you can really tell me it will be a wonderful addition to the EU, there are always pros and cons.

Since their job is only to implement unanimously agreed policy - when such a thing happens - it's hard to see a lot of cons in there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

Well your certainly getting on board with Scoffaw and putting the spin into operation. But I guess someone has to.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

dearg lady

rumour wrote: »

This may not belong here, but does our taxation guarantee give us any advantages. In an economic sense do we have an advantage to introduce taxes at bargain basement levels. Europe won't allow it everywhere but they've given us specific guarantees that would be entirely within character to exploit.

Seems like an opportunity in the face of our dire predicament. Or will we negotiate that away to borrow some more money from the ECB.

We already have pretty low corporation tax and income tax compared a lot of Europe. Quite possibly the only way is up!

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

an awful lot swung because of the economy.
when fianna fail had their buddy party in farmleigh seeking advice on the recession and filtering comments to the media it wrongly told people that we are in recession because of the last no vote.

I don't even think that swinging because of the economy was a particularly bad reason, I think it will help. I don't think it'll bring 100,000 jobs or that the recession will end next Tuesday or any such over simplistic straw men but what I can say is that it'll help more than a no. People had very little reason to vote no last time but they wanted to keep the status quo and were afraid of making any changes if there was the tiniest possibility that any of the no campaign's claims were true, which they of course weren't. Now the tables have turned, the status quo is no longer desirable so people were motivated to keep us fully involved in the European project and to keep the goodwill of our neighbours and the confidence of businesses. The vast majority of people never had any particular problem with the treaty the last time and this time they didn't have anything they particularly liked about it, it was the circumstances around the treaty that changed

rumour wrote: »

This may not belong here, but does our taxation guarantee give us any advantages. In an economic sense do we have an advantage to introduce taxes at bargain basement levels. Europe won't allow it everywhere but they've given us specific guarantees that would be entirely within character to exploit.

Europe will have to allow it everywhere because they have no competence in that area, contrary to what no campaigners said.

fligedlyflick

Scofflaw wrote: »

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

don't be looking for answers to your questions when you fail to answer any yourself?

Elmo

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. we're already "part of" the EDA, and have been since it was founded in 2004.

2. we're not required to increase military spending at all:

1. I said that, it however is further written into the Lisbon treaty then ever before.
2. We are require to ensure that our military is up to standard, I am guessing we are going to have to increase spending on Military to insure that it is up to standard, I don't see how else you would do it.

Hopeful some funding will go into proper broadband soon.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Europe will have to allow it everywhere because they have no competence in that area, contrary to what no campaigners said.

I am seriously moving on from a debate on Lisbon. We have a new reality to deal with. The French and Germans have on their agenda tax harmonisation and have had for years. With this new system I believe they'll ultimately get what they want. In a few short years it will become evident why tax harmonistaion is in Europe's interest generally to provide economic stability and avoid a race to the bottom. This race carries with it a serious risk of inflaming nationalism or reverse protectionism for want of a better word. This scenario is very destructive and would be the test of these new institutions but again that is for another day.
Please refer also to the G20 issue of creating a notional world reserve currency which is gaining rapid momentum and its implications. This will put similar restrictions on Europe's economy as the Euro placed on the Irish one, less control on interest rates etc. Europe may appear against the Irish economy as a beacon of hope but it has fundamental problems.

However Ireland is a blip on the European landscape and may well be fortunate enough to capitalise on this minor issue where other countries have not. I have noticed today that Cameron has signalled he wants major opt outs for the UK but has admitted that structural reform is all but impossible. That must surely be good news for the YES camp:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I am seriously moving on from a debate on Lisbon. We have a new reality to deal with. The French and Germans have on their agenda tax harmonisation and have had for years. With this new system I believe they'll ultimately get what they want.

Which you are wrong on. They have no competence in that area and only an Irish referendum can give it to them

rumour wrote: »

However Ireland is a blip on the European landscape and may well be fortunate enough to capitalise on this minor issue where other countries have not. I have noticed today that Cameron has signalled he wants major opt outs for the UK but has admitted that structural reform is all but impossible. That must surely be good news for the YES camp:rolleyes:

The EU has no control over corporation tax today and it hasn't for any of the last 36 years. Ireland is no different in this. The taxation guarantee says "Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation". It does not apply only to us and if any country wanted to drop their corporation tax they could have done so long ago and can still do so today.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The EU has no control over corporation tax today and it hasn't for any of the last 36 years. Ireland is no different in this. The taxation guarantee says "Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation". It does not apply only to us and if any country wanted to drop their corporation tax they could have done so long ago and can still do so today.

Just because we signed up to that today does not mean we won't change our minds:o, and that is a European issue not an Irish one.

It doesn't need a referendum in any other European Country, and if I am to believe you it does here. Additionally we have a guarantee to negotiate with. Surely this is to our advantage.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Just because we signed up to that today does not mean we won't change our minds:o, and that is a European issue not an Irish one.

Yes we can change our minds in the future but I'm not sure what you mean by it's a European issue....

rumour wrote: »

It doesn't need a referendum in any other European Country, and if I am to believe you it does here. Additionally we have a guarantee to negotiate with. Surely this is to our advantage.

The guarantee doesn't specifically refer to us. The guarantee clarifies the contents of the treaty, the treaty that applies to all 27 member states. You might argue that we are less likely to give up our veto on it because we need a referendum but that has nothing to do with the guarantee. Every country has exactly the same guarantee that we do, that the EU has no power to change their corporation tax

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

I think out of courtesy I should reply.

Yes, I'm afraid we're going to have to spin the second vote for external consumption like nobody's business. Still, we can at least rely on the Yes parties to do that.

I did not make the distinction between you and political parties, my apologies.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I think out of courtesy I should reply.

I did not make the distinction between you and political parties, my apologies.

Your apologies are accepted. I would hate people to think I was a member of any political party. If I ever get around to joining the Greens I will make it clear that I have such an affiliation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes we can change our minds in the future but I'm not sure what you mean by it's a European issue....

The EU can change its mind on its competancy depending on the circumstances, just as we have done in our referendum. Its simple write a new treaty. If the major economies of Europe as a whole are threatened (watch fear take hold) anything can be achieved. I know we are small and percieve Europe as an unwavering massive power to solve all our ills, but Europe has some sizmic economic problems to deal with. Being able to manage these will involve acting in unison. If each country starts an internal race to the bottom on taxes to preserve its economy while at the same time the EU tries to defend europe economically externally it will be a disaster. Hopefully that should explain how the EU's competency can easily be deemed to include taxation. That is why I always have agreed with unity in Europe. (Just the mechanisms etc etc etc.:o

The guarantee doesn't specifically refer to us. The guarantee clarifies the contents of the treaty, the treaty that applies to all 27 member states. You might argue that we are less likely to give up our veto on it because we need a referendum but that has nothing to do with the guarantee. Every country has exactly the same guarantee that we do, that the EU has no power to change their corporation tax

Well at this stage we shouldn't say anything more about it as it offers nothing of value.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

The EU can change its mind on its competancy depending on the circumstances, just as we have done in our referendum. Its simple write a new treaty. If the major economies of Europe as a whole are threatened (watch fear take hold) anything can be achieved. I know we are small and percieve Europe as an unwavering massive power to solve all our ills, but Europe has some sizmic economic problems to deal with. Being able to manage these will involve acting in unison. If each country starts an internal race to the bottom on taxes to preserve its economy while at the same time the EU tries to defend europe economically externally it will be a disaster. Hopefully that should explain how the EU's competency can easily be deemed to include taxation. That is why I always have agreed with unity in Europe. (Just the mechanisms etc etc etc.:o

I'm lost. Ireland has a veto on taxation, it can only be taken by referendum. What do you think will change this?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm lost. Ireland has a veto on taxation, it can only be taken by referendum. What do you think will change this?

Our veto is worthless and so are any protestations we might have. The backbone of Ireland has been clearly exposed. Not that it would halt Europe in any case.

There is a very persuasive argument for tax harmonisation for the purposes of unity within the union, this argument is based on reason.

I don't know your knowledge world economics but in the last two years the western world has not been faring that well. I am not an economist but if China is using IOU's from the states to buy raw materials all over the world and if investment funds are leaving USA and Europe they smell a rat. Independent financial advise, the sort you pay for, advises moving your capital out of the Eurozone and USA.

Consider it like this, for a year the market pulled all its cash out of Anglo Irish. Anglo maintained for quite a long time that nothing was wrong eventually when it collapsed tons of **** was wrong it just owed to much money. They were even manipulating share prices at the end. That is what is going on in the Eurozone and USA.

Europe does not have any energy resouces.
Europe does not have raw materials for a manufacturing industry
European citizens have the cosiest life on the planet
Europe ability to control any of these issues is dwindling G8 now G20.

There are so many anaolgies with ireland its frightening. These are just facts, this is not scaremongering. How is Europe going to cope?

One would hope that they are more strategically minded than the Irish who only ever look infront of their noses.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Our veto is worthless and so are any protestations we might have. The backbone of Ireland has been clearly exposed. Not that it would halt Europe in any case.

There is a very persuasive argument for tax harmonisation for the purposes of unity within the union, this argument is based on reason.

I don't know your knowledge world economics but in the last two years the western world has not been faring that well. I am not an economist but if China is using IOU's from the states to buy raw materials all over the world and if investment funds are leaving USA and Europe they smell a rat. Independent financial advise, the sort you pay for, advises moving your capital out of the Eurozone and USA.

Consider it like this, for a year the market pulled all its cash out of Anglo Irish. Anglo maintained for quite a long time that nothing was wrong eventually when it collapsed tons of **** was wrong it just owed to much money. They were even manipulating share prices at the end. That is what is going on in the Eurozone and USA.

Europe does not have any energy resouces.
Europe does not have raw materials for a manufacturing industry
European citizens have the cosiest life on the planet
Europe ability to control any of these issues is dwindling G8 now G20.

There are so many anaolgies with ireland its frightening. These are just facts, this is not scaremongering. How is Europe going to cope?

One would hope that they are more strategically minded than the Irish who only ever look infront of their noses.

Sorry I'm still not following. Where's the part where we vote away our veto on corporation tax?

I'm not being facetious here, I honestly don't know where you're going with this

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry I'm still not following. Where's the part where we vote away our veto on corporation tax?

I'm not being facetious here, I honestly don't know where you're going with this

My point is our veto is worthless. We'll just continue voting until we get the right answer as and when required. Economics will set the agenda and our powerless politicians will explain to us what is in the best interest of Ireland and we the people will vote accordingly.

Taxation no matter what was included in the treaty was a red herring. But it is now firmly on the European agenda.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

My point is our veto is worthless. We'll just continue voting until we get the right answer as and when required. Economics will set the agenda and our powerless politicians will explain to us what is in the best interest of Ireland and we the people will vote accordingly.

Taxation no matter what was included in the treaty was a red herring. But it is now firmly on the European agenda.

Ah right so your point is that referendums are a poor democratic tool because the people can be so easily fooled. Looks to me like you've lost all confidence in referendums the same way I did when the people were fooled into the last no vote. I'm sorry to tell you rumour but this is the best system we've got for the moment and if you don't trust the government to keep our much needed veto on tax and you don't trust the people to keep it either you should probably go and live on a desert Island somewhere.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

My point is our veto is worthless. We'll just continue voting until we get the right answer as and when required. Economics will set the agenda and our powerless politicians will explain to us what is in the best interest of Ireland and we the people will vote accordingly.

Taxation no matter what was included in the treaty was a red herring. But it is now firmly on the European agenda.

It is not on the agenda of at least 18 countries.

The rest I just can't be bothered with anymore.

K-9

rumour wrote: »

The backbone of Ireland has been clearly exposed.

No, the backbone was exposed last time.

The majority last time didn't know enough about it or the guarantees addressed their concerns.

The Core No vote does not represent the majority opinion in this country.

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

My point is our veto is worthless. We'll just continue voting until we get the right answer as and when required. Economics will set the agenda and our powerless politicians will explain to us what is in the best interest of Ireland and we the people will vote accordingly.

Taxation no matter what was included in the treaty was a red herring. But it is now firmly on the European agenda.

I can see why you chose the user-name you have: you fire in unsupported claims and treat them as facts.