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

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

I guess your right about referendums. But I am completely dumbfounded at Ireland when faced with a rational decision it becomes so easily lost in the irrational. On this point i see no distinction between the YES and NO camp and I shouldn't get hung up on a guarantee that guarantees the treaty says what it says.

Regarding my concerns about the economy, two years ago after nearly twenty years working in Ireland I sold up everything and changed my job to make me less dependent on this country. Why? In my little world things didn't make sense and significantly I didn't believe our political system would take the necessary decisions, much to the distaste of my friends and sometimes colleagues. How dare I doubt Ireland.

Now I'm beginning to look more and more seriously at the wider world of economics, having paid scant regard despite people warning me for years that something seriously wrong was going on. Things from a western world perspective look increasingly bleak.

I don't know if things will get worse but when the writing is on the wall you have to do something otherwise you become stupid for not having acted. Politicians across Europe with the exception of perhaps the eastern block countries have had an unchallenged existence for nearly forty years. So much so that it is practically passed down through the family.(Probably more so in Ireland). Their view of the world is of entitlement, the recent examples in Ireland are mirrored across Europe and right into Brussels. Do I trust them NO. It seems they will use every tool at their disposal to become the arbitrator of events that are actually of their making. That is self preservation and holding onto power.

The statement that 'this is the best process we've got' is one I have used with individuals for years, however years have gone by and it remains the same. Always with each outrage YES we need change but not just now that would cause to many problems.

I would like to believe that Europe is strong and can protect Ireland as it is doing right now by bailing our useless asses out. But unless someone can tell me otherwise I think we're headed to another crisis. But the powers that be will of course skillfully abstract themselves from this problem.

Their solution will be new laws and regulations that we need to vote on out of necessity and remember tax is on the agenda.

I guess that sounds bit worse than confidence in referendums:(

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

We'll just continue voting until we get the right answer as and when required

Precedent NICE Treaty and LISBON Treaty

Economics will set the agenda

Can you explain why this whole European project started. Was it any thing to do with Economics?

our powerless politicians will explain to us what is in the best interest of Ireland

What economic power do our politicians have when they are borrowing 520m a week?

we the people will vote accordingly

How can you have issue with this?

Taxation no matter what was included in the treaty was a red herring

You might like to believe we have control on this issue, but the person you owe all the money to will determine the outcome. Unless your intention is to forget all about that minor issue. That is why I say it is a red herring.

it is now firmly on the European agenda.

Google Corporate Tax Competition and check out how many academic papers have been produced on this in the last few years in Europe alone. Check out the ec.europa.eu/economy_finance. I am not the one calling for conferences on the subject, no this would be the EU.

So tell me, which one of these is absolutely not true and just a rumour.

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

... So tell me, which one of these is absolutely not true and just a rumour.

The bit about our veto being worthless.

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The bit about our veto being worthless.

How can it have any value??? The factors that determine our taxation policy we lost control of when we borrowed all the money. Do you not understand this?

We can veto until the cows come home but we'll still have to tax to pay back the debt. If Europe wants to harmonise tax and we're skint who are we to argue when they're providing the money.

I just don't get it, do you think we borrow this with no obligations. FFS do you really not understand why no mainstream political party was against this treaty despite the obvious political opportunity. Do you really believe they all supported it because they are good citizens.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

How can it have any value??? The factors that determine our taxation policy we lost control of when we borrowed all the money. Do you not understand this?

We can veto until the cows come home but we'll still have to tax to pay back the debt. If Europe wants to harmonise tax and we're skint who are we to argue when they're providing the money.

I just don't get it, do you think we borrow this with no obligations. FFS do you really not understand why no mainstream political party was against this treaty despite the obvious political opportunity. Do you really believe they all supported it because they are good citizens.

Money is loaned on the precondition that it is paid back. Not by what means the money is raised to pay it back.

The ECB being a central bank has no influence on other areas of EU policy (like taxation) and likewise is completely insulated from political interference itself in the other direction.

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

How can it have any value??? The factors that determine our taxation policy we lost control of when we borrowed all the money. Do you not understand this?...

We have not lost control of our taxation policy.

What we have lost is the opportunity to continue indefinitely as a low-tax economy, and I am more prepared than most for tax increases: I accept that they will be necessary. But of this I am sure: the increased burden of taxation will fall on individuals rather than on bodies corporate. Low tax on corporate profits is a cornerstone of our economic policy.

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

Money is loaned on the precondition that it is paid back. Not by what means the money is raised to pay it back.

The ECB has no influence on other areas of EU policy (like taxation) and likewise is completely insulated from political interference itself.

Well if that provides you comfort so be it.

Do you really believe the government didn't give any commitments to get spending under control when it went to the ECB. Money is loaned under contract. In the contract there is an offer, acceptance and consideration. The consideration can be anything. Usually it is to make money but it does not have to be. And when your the unfortunate beggar it can be anything you want.

If you believe the ECB has no influence on other areas of EU policy you are quite simply in a dream world. The Night Garden or somewhere like that.
The President of the ECB is a political appointment for a start. Its also a position no Irish man is likely to see for a very long time if ever.

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We have not lost control of our taxation policy.

What we have lost is the opportunity to continue indefinitely as a low-tax economy, and I am more prepared than most for tax increases: I accept that they will be necessary. But of this I am sure: the increased burden of taxation will fall on individuals rather than on bodies corporate. Low tax on corporate profits is a cornerstone of our economic policy.

yea your certainty reassures me, I will now sleep comfortably.

K-9

rumour wrote: »

Well if that provides you comfort so be it.

Do you really believe the government didn't give any commitments to get spending under control when it went to the ECB. Money is loaned under contract. In the contract there is an offer, acceptance and consideration. The consideration can be anything. Usually it is to make money but it does not have to be. And when your the unfortunate beggar it can be anything you want.

If you believe the ECB has no influence on other areas of EU policy you are quite simply in a dream world. The Night Garden or somewhere like that.
The President of the ECB is a political appointment for a start. Its also a position no Irish man is likely to see for a very long time if ever.

We can't go on borrowing €400 Million a day. Lenihan has said "no more taxes", though there will be stealth taxes. Spending cuts will be the main focus.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Well if that provides you comfort so be it.

Do you really believe the government didn't give any commitments to get spending under control when it went to the ECB. Money is loaned under contract. In the contract there is an offer, acceptance and consideration. The consideration can be anything. Usually it is to make money but it does not have to be. And when your the unfortunate beggar it can be anything you want.

If you believe the ECB has no influence on other areas of EU policy you are quite simply in a dream world. The Night Garden or somewhere like that.
The President of the ECB is a political appointment for a start. Its also a position no Irish man is likely to see for a very long time if ever.

While you have a nice little conspiracy theory going. Reality says you are wrong.

http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/independence/html/index.en.html

Political independence
The independence of the ECB is conducive to maintaining price stability. This is supported by extensive theoretical analysis and empirical evidence on central bank independence.

The ECB's independence is laid down in the institutional framework for the single monetary policy (in the Treaty and in the Statute).


Practical implications
Neither the ECB nor the national central banks (NCBs), nor any member of their decision-making bodies, are allowed to seek or take instructions from European Community institutions or bodies, from any government of an EU Member State or from any other body.

Community institutions and bodies and the governments of the Member States must respect this principle and not seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB (Article 108 of the Treaty).

Incidently judicial appointments in Ireland are made politically, are they subject to undue influence? (Hint check how many have taken pay cuts)

fligedlyflick

to rumour.
absolutely pointless expressing your concerns on here as you shall constantly be degraded and subjected to virulent denials and generic governmenesque responses, sarcasm and assumptions to your sanity and political preference

ei.sdraob

fligedlyflick wrote: »

to rumour.
absolutely pointless expressing your concerns on here as you shall constantly be degraded and subjected to virulent denials and generic governmenesque responses, sarcasm and assumptions to your sanity and political preference

well this is not the conspiracy forum, a certain level of sanity is expected

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

How can it have any value??? The factors that determine our taxation policy we lost control of when we borrowed all the money. Do you not understand this?

We can veto until the cows come home but we'll still have to tax to pay back the debt. If Europe wants to harmonise tax and we're skint who are we to argue when they're providing the money.

I just don't get it, do you think we borrow this with no obligations. FFS do you really not understand why no mainstream political party was against this treaty despite the obvious political opportunity. Do you really believe they all supported it because they are good citizens.

And yet you wanted a no vote to Lisbon. What has changed in the past few days for you to go from advocating a no vote to "who are we to argue when they're providing the money"?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

to rumour.
absolutely pointless expressing your concerns on here as you shall constantly be degraded and subjected to virulent denials and generic governmenesque responses, sarcasm and assumptions to your sanity and political preference

That right there is called an ad hominem argument. Could it not be that we won’t accept his point because he’s wrong, rather than because we’re big meanies?

fligedlyflick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

well this is not the conspiracy forum, a certain level of sanity is expected

proof of sarcasm and questioning one's mental stability who disagreed with the pro lisbon sentiments.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That right there is called an ad hominem argument. Could it not be that we won’t accept his point because he’s wrong, rather than because we’re big meanies?

scofflaw basically refuted the post yesterday where i asked about the unease within aviation authorities relating to the eu change in working hours for pilots from 2012, my "innacurate" take on the issue was how he eloquently put it.
regardless of course the channel 4 news reporting on it and the picket by british airmen concerned about this newly released plan by brussels.
so either channel 4 is scaremongering for the sake of scaremongering, i am entering a phase of psychosis brought on by the yes re-vote or as scofflaw likes to believe i'm just wrong?
so i really do suspect that any posts here which do not fit in with your vision of a perfect eu empire is treated with contempt and wrongly subjected to copy and paste replies from eu propaganda

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

scofflaw basically refuted the post yesterday where i asked about the unease within aviation authorities relating to the eu change in working hours for pilots from 2012, my "innacurate" take on the issue was how he eloquently put it.
regardless of course the channel 4 news reporting on it and the picket by british airmen concerned about this newly released plan by brussels.
so either channel 4 is scaremongering for the sake of scaremongering, i am entering a phase of psychosis brought on by the yes re-vote or as scofflaw likes to believe i'm just wrong?
so i really do suspect that any posts here which do not fit in with your vision of a perfect eu empire is treated with contempt and wrongly subjected to copy and paste replies from eu propaganda

No one ever said the EU was perfect, they can get things wrong just like anyone else. Although it's odd to see people protesting to try to get the EU to introduce more stringent controls tbh, usually it's the other way around

fligedlyflick

and the propaganda bit was added in to please those of you who believe my no direction was perpetrated by paranoia and conspiracy theorists

fligedlyflick

how an i add in that wee bit at the bottom of posts?
things like yours sam with the "i've been drafted in to the european army for 1.84 an hour",
i wish to put in, "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over"

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

how an i add in that wee bit at the bottom of posts?
things like yours sam with the "i've been drafted in to the european army for 1.84 an hour",
i wish to put in, "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over"

The difference being that the things in my sig are things that were actually claimed by parts of the no campaign where yours are over simplistic straw men of things on the yes side. We've already seen several examples of economic improvement related to the yes vote, the big boys were hanging on and waiting for our result

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The difference being that the things in my sig are things that were actually claimed by parts of the no campaign where yours are over simplistic straw men of things on the yes side. We've already seen several examples of economic improvement related to the yes vote, the big boys were hanging on and waiting for our result

so your sig is more relevant as it was said by the no camp and mine is unworthy because it was the main selling point for the yes vote

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

so your sig is more relevant as it was said by the no camp and mine is unworthy because it was the main selling point for the yes vote

No my sig is relevant because it accurately represents claims from the no side but yours is unworthy because it does not accurately represent anything that was ever said by anyone on the yes side. No one ever claimed "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over" but people did claim that the treaty would bring in conscription to an EU army and a €1.84 minimum wage

edit: to quote myself:
"yes to jobs" never meant "100,000 jobs for Monday", that is and always was an extremely over simplified interpretation meant to make a reasonable economic prediction based on experience and sound advice sound like a lie. I know what he meant because if he meant what the people on the no side claim he would be retarded. Not only would he be retarded but anyone who believed him would also be retarded. Using my knowledge that Brian Lenihan is unlikely to be retarded or at the very least, someone in either FF or FG would realise that the people are not retarded, I took a more reasonable interpretation of the slogans: that a yes vote, while not being the answer to all of our problems, would help our situation a lot more than a no vote.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No my sig is relevant because it accurately represents claims from the no side but yours is unworthy because it does not accurately represent anything that was ever said by anyone on the yes side.

edit: to quote myself:
"yes to jobs" never meant "100,000 jobs for Monday",

so basically yes to jobs was lies?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

so basically yes to jobs was lies?

Here's an example:

Me: A yes vote will help the economy. To illustrate this in a manner that fits on a poster I will put the simple slogan "yes to jobs" and explain my meaning further in a forum where I can give more information than a poster allows

You: Oh so you're saying that a yes vote means "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over"

Me: No I'm saying that it will help the economy more than a no vote

You: Oh so you're saying that I should start getting offered jobs just walking down the street?

Me: No I'm saying that it will help the economy more than a no vote

You: Oh so you're saying that "Yes to jobs" means "100,000 jobs for Monday"

Me: No I'm saying that it will help the economy more than a no vote

You: <Another ridiculous straw man>

Me: No I'm saying that it will help the economy more than a no vote

You: Liar, you said there would be "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over" :mad:

Me: *head explode*

OldJay

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i wish to put in, "nil unemployment, population back at work, recession is over"

Nobody EVER claimed anything like that.
The lies on the 'No' posters are proven to be lies.

The fact that you can't see the difference between advising people that if we sh*t on the EU, its the end of the benefits of membership currently enjoyed and then deceptive, manipulative and distortive LIES says it all about why the vote swung right around to whack the self-righteous liars who purported them in the ass.

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... Me: *head explode*

Some arguments are not worth pursuing.

fligedlyflick

me - "if i vote yes what can i expect to happen regarding jobs"
you - " a yes vote will lead to job creation, just look at the posters by FF FG
labour, they all say yes for jobs"

me - "but how, seeing as we have one of the highest minimum wages in
europe and these new states like poland are already offering better
deals to dell and others and can promise lower wage bills, it's already
happening, the main employment here was construction, thats gone
belly-up, so will a yes vote soothe buyer confidence and help the
banks
start doing what they are supposed to be doing and help our small
businesses get back into order. back to the minimum wage thing,
if you were a multinational and had a choice between say poland, on
european mainland thus reducing logistic costs and have a very low
wage structure or ireland where it's an island, high wage
expectations but voted yes to lisbon, (hold on, so did poland,)
where would your preference be?
if we dropped our minimum wage would that help?
you - "yes for jobs".

fligedlyflick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some arguments are not worth pursuing.

are they not P?
pardon me and my false assumption that i can freely debate with someone without fear of snide remarks and haughty responses from someone i was not conferring with.

fligedlyflick

Justind wrote: »

Nobody EVER claimed anything like that.
The lies on the 'No' posters are proven to be lies.

how were they proven to be lies?
a few remarks to the contrary on boards.ie does not constitute proof.
proof will be evaluated in future times if conscription fails to materialize and this country is miraculously awash with jobs,

P. Breathnach

fligedlyflick wrote: »

are they not P?

In my opinion, no. You have interpreted a political slogan in an absurdly tight way. That makes worthwhile discussion unreasonably difficult to conduct.

pardon me and my false assumption that i can freely debate with someone without fear of snide remarks and haughty responses from someone i was not conferring with.

If you want a private conversation, don't conduct it on a discussion forum.