Wall St Journal - Ireland has no reason to fear the consequences of No vote on Lisbon

Toiletroll

I don't quite know what to say about this. A readership of over 2 million people, thirty-three times Pulitzer Prize winner, found on the desk of every CEO in the world, the bible of investors everywhere...

So, who to trust, the Wall Street Journal or Brian "NAMA" Cowen?

Here's what they have to say:

It should hardly need stating that Mr. Lenihan is peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes. But in a world made skittish by last year's global credit panic, it's just possible that someone might, at least in the absence of thought, take them seriously. Preying on those fears, in fact, seems to be the chief strategy of the Yes campaign.

The truth about the Irish economy, however, is closer to the opposite of what Mr. Lenihan pretends. It is popular in Brussels to attribute Ireland's remarkable decade-long growth spurt to EU largesse. The Irish themselves know better, or ought to. Ireland sucked on the teat of EU regional aid for two and a half decades without discernible effect. By the mid-1980s, it was still a poor country by European standards, but it was also facing a budgetary and debt crisis. It was only when it started on a campaign of supply-side tax cuts slashing marginal rates along with capital gains and corporate income-tax rates that the economy took off.

This debunks the fear and scaremongering from the yes posters.

As for Irish interest rates, those are now set in Frankfurt, and Ireland has benefited from the arrangement. But no sane businessman is going to mistake a No vote on Lisbon with a decision to pull out of Europe or the euro. That kind of apocalyptic talk is symptomatic of the great plague of what passes for European politics: the strident declarations that you are either with us or against us. In Europe today , it sometimes seems that no possibility of a loyal opposition is countenanced.

Also the wild generalisation that voting yes will bring investment is also a non issue.

It should never have come to this at all. When they do vote in two weeks, however, we hope that vote is an informed one, and not based on unfounded fear-mongering or dark threats. To that end, we will be publishing excerpts from the Lisbon Treaty on these pages over the next two weeks. The first of these appears below. We apologize in advance if some of them are incomprehensible, but we urge you to direct any correspondence on that subject to the treaty's authors.

We would hope, but the sheer amount of yes posters with yes for jobs etc might fool a lot of people

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNjExNDYyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Discuss...

PopeBuckfastXVI

When the WSJ opens up a plant employing several thousand people in Ireland, and says that a 'Yes' to Lisbon will hurt it's ability to inject further investment I'll take it a little bit more seriously.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Are they seriously going to publish Lisbon excerpts as opposed to excerpts from the consolidated treaties as changed by Lisbon?

What a ridiculous waste of paper.

Dinner

Any idea who the author is?

Can't seem to find it on the page (and neither can a poster in the comments section). Just see it's in the opinion section.

K-9

I wouldn't disagree with too much that he/she comments on, but has Lenihan actually said any of this stuff or is it interpretation?

Toiletroll

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

When the WSJ opens up a plant employing several thousand people in Ireland, and says that a 'Yes' to Lisbon will hurt it's ability to inject further investment I'll take it a little bit more seriously.

I think you need to re-evaluate the reasons those companies are supporting Lisbon.

Intel are in a huge multi-billion euro monopoly case with the EU where the EU want to fine them 1.4Bn due to monopoly issues with that canadian company AMD... Great way to get them to support it, with the appeal from Intel coming up shortly after Lisbon.

O Leary wanted to get rid of the pilot unions!

O'Morris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

When the WSJ opens up a plant employing several thousand people in Ireland, and says that a 'Yes' to Lisbon will hurt it's ability to inject further investment I'll take it a little bit more seriously.

Did Intel say that a no to Lisbon would hurt it's ability to inject further investment into the Irish plant?

Toiletroll

"But no sane businessman is going to mistake a No vote on Lisbon with a decision to pull out of Europe or the euro." above link

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

O Leary wanted to get rid of the pilot unions!

What does David Begg want?

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

Did Intel say that a no to Lisbon would hurt it's ability to inject further investment into the Irish plant?

By and large.

Jim O'Hara, Intel Ireland wrote:

“Ireland has a reputation of being influential in Europe. The absence of that positive when it comes to making investment decisions is what worries me.”

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13710/business/its-about-investment-decisions

Funglegunk

The opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal are notorious in the States for their neo-conservative/far-right bias. I doubt this article is any different.

Dinner

Funglegunk wrote: »

The opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal are notorious in the States for their neo-conservative/far-right bias. I doubt this article is any different.

That could explain it.

That article is completley ridiculous. Devoid of any kind of balance. Instead resortng to the same trash thats been floating around for months now, been forced to vote again, first result cast aside, incomprehensible treaty etc...

You're going to need something better than an opinion piece to make a solid argument.

K-9

Toiletroll wrote: »

"But no sane businessman is going to mistake a No vote on Lisbon with a decision to pull out of Europe or the euro." above link

No, but they could interpret it as seeing Ireland in a bad light, seeing as the No campaign is even more about scare mongering and lies.

Scofflaw

The WSJ was bought by Rupert Murdoch last year - hence the hagiographic WSJ piece on Ganley last week. It's now as trustworthy as Fox News.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, need I say more

Edit: Scofflaw got there first

Sam Vimes

No one denies that our lowering of corporate tax had a massive impact. It caused corporations to locate here as opposed to other EU countries. If we weren't in the EU it would have made feck all difference

Toiletroll

Scofflaw wrote: »

The WSJ was bought by Rupert Murdoch last year - hence the hagiographic WSJ piece on Ganley last week. It's now as trustworthy as Fox News.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Murdoch also owns the vehimontly pro Lisbon and EU SKY news. So what difference?

joseph brand

We apologize in advance if some of them are incomprehensible

I think it's tough reading for the normal Joes. "Yes?, No!, I dunno!"

Mick O' Leering is nestled in the YES camp. Sure he only wants whats good for the Irish. That's why he uses cardboard seats on his planes, and charges for oxygen in flight. He revolutionised flying, took all the glamour out of it.

Now it's just as appealing as licking a Hobo's arse. :eek:

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

Murdoch also owns the vehimontly pro Lisbon and EU SKY news. So what difference?

Murdoch is fairly anti EU

its the only entity that can stop his monopolistic empire

he even gets a mention in a book for it

and yet another book


or own wikipedia page

In the UK, many newspapers, notably the Daily Mail and the Rupert Murdoch newspapers (The Sun, the News of the World, The Times and The Sunday Times), are eurosceptic along with the broadsheet Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, and have published many stories (sometimes referred to as euromyths) highly critical of the European Union and its policies. The accuracy or otherwise of these stories is hotly disputed, and in some cases the actions of international bodies with no connection to the EU have been attributed to it

to say that Murdoch is Pro EU is a laughable lie :cool:

nice try

K-9

Toiletroll wrote: »

Murdoch also owns the vehimontly pro Lisbon and EU SKY news. So what difference?

I'd hardly say vehimently now!

Scofflaw

Toiletroll wrote: »

Murdoch also owns the vehimontly pro Lisbon and EU SKY news. So what difference?

Sky News is constrained by UK reporting standards, and is only "vehemently pro-Lisbon" in the view of people who are in the "either for us or against us" mindset (or compared to his other outlets). Wherever Murdoch is not constrained to any form of journalistic standard - as in the US - you can see what he prefers.

Citing the WSJ's historical reputation is entirely meaningless, because there's a big sign up saying "Under New Management" outside.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Toiletroll

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Murdoch is fairly anti EU

its the only entity that can stop his monopolistic empire

he even gets a mention in a book for it

and yet another book


or own wikipedia page






to say that Murdoch is Pro EU is a laughable lie :cool:

nice try

I didnt say he was. I said other parts of his empire are very pro Lisbon such as Sky News. Thats all.

Stabshauptmann

The Wall Street Journal has a free market bias. I don’t mean bias in the disingenuous sense, the WSJ just holds a firm belief in free market economics and in this case is giving more credit to right wing economics than is fair.

Joining the EU had immediate and quantifiable benefits to the Irish economy. The most obvious and poignant statistic is that during the 1970s our population increased for the first time since independence.

During the 1980s there was a world wide economic crisis. Things were worse in Ireland because we had a bad starting point, and because of mismanagement. The 1987 budget did save the country imo. But what the WSJ doesn’t give credit for is that it was accomplished with EU money!

Without these reforms the celtic tiger would not have been possible. However, without EU membership these reforms would not have been possible.

Furthermore the growth that began in the late 80s and early 90s in manufacturing was only one part of the Celtic Tiger, and not the most important. It was the IFSC imo that made the Irish Economy what it is today. Again, the success in attracting Financial Service multi nations to Ireland is due in part to our low tax economy, but it is also due to EU membership. Many of the residents of the IFSC are shell companies, and company headquaters looking to exploit regulatory and tax arbitrage. Without access to EU markets they would not bother.

Voting YES will not magically fix the economy. It will not encourage more Foreign Direct Investment. But it most certainly will not damage the economy. Voting no will.

Voting no will damage the economy because:
There already exists scope for a two speed EU. Some countries are already more integrated than others. For example the Schengan agreement on the free movement of people is not adopted by all countries. I fear that if we do not agree to the integration of some areas that we will simply be relegated to the outside circle of the EU.

A faster, more decisive EU will be able to tackle events like the Banking crisis better. The EU was too slow to come up with an action plan, that’s why we implemented the banking guarantee, which was the biggest gamble in economic history – thankfully it paid off.

Large MNCs when looking to establish in a new country always evaluate the political climate and stability. Rejecting the Lisbon treaty would, rightly or wrongly, lump us into the Europhobe box. That is a mark against us, and may be the difference between deciding the head quarter a fund in Luxemburg or Dublin.

cooperguy

I wouldnt mind them talking about the over the top posters of the Yes side if they hadnt completely ignored the lies on posters of the No campaign! Especially when they say:

we hope that vote is an informed one, and not based on unfounded fear-mongering or dark threats

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

I didnt say he was. I said another of his companies / news mediums is pro EU. Thats all.

Sky News == Faux News == Fox News


they can say whatever they want to say

they have 0 credibility in any argument

go watch BBC news they have to keep neutral


as for murdoch's papers i wouldnt wipemyarse with them (haha toiletroll )

Steviemak

Toiletroll wrote: »

Murdoch also owns the vehimontly pro Lisbon and EU SKY news. So what difference?

He doesn't own sky news he has operational control but only owes 1/3 of the shares. He doesn't implement any editorial control mainly due to strict broadcasting rules set by Ofcom.

K-9

Toiletroll wrote: »

I didnt say he was. I said other parts of his empire are very pro Lisbon such as Sky News. Thats all.

I've never found them to be either way on it, to be honest.

They, tend to be far more interested in Jade Goody and Jordan as headline pieces!

Toiletroll

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

The Wall Street Journal has a free market bias. I don’t mean bias in the disingenuous sense, the WSJ just holds a firm belief in free market economics and in this case is giving more credit to right wing economics than is fair.

Joining the EU had immediate and quantifiable benefits to the Irish economy. The most obvious and poignant statistic is that during the 1970s our population increased for the first time since independence.

During the 1980s there was a world wide economic crisis. Things were worse in Ireland because we had a bad starting point, and because of mismanagement. The 1987 budget did save the country imo. But what the WSJ doesn’t give credit for is that it was accomplished with EU money!

Without these reforms the celtic tiger would not have been possible. However, without EU membership these reforms would not have been possible.

Furthermore the growth that began in the late 80s and early 90s in manufacturing was only one part of the Celtic Tiger, and not the most important. It was the IFSC imo that made the Irish Economy what it is today. Again, the success in attracting Financial Service multi nations to Ireland is due in part to our low tax economy, but it is also due to EU membership. Many of the residents of the IFSC are shell companies, and company headquaters looking to exploit regulatory and tax arbitrage. Without access to EU markets they would not bother.

Voting YES will not magically fix the economy. It will not encourage more Foreign Direct Investment. But it most certainly will not damage the economy. Voting no will.

Voting no will damage the economy because:
There already exists scope for a two speed EU. Some countries are already more integrated than others. For example the Schengan agreement on the free movement of people is not adopted by all countries. I fear that if we do not agree to the integration of some areas that we will simply be relegated to the outside circle of the EU.

A faster, more decisive EU will be able to tackle events like the Banking crisis better. The EU was too slow to come up with an action plan, that’s why we implemented the banking guarantee, which was the biggest gamble in economic history – thankfully it paid off.

Large MNCs when looking to establish in a new country always evaluate the political climate and stability. Rejecting the Lisbon treaty would, rightly or wrongly, lump us into the Europhobe box. That is a mark against us, and may be the difference between deciding the head quarter a fund in Luxemburg or Dublin.

Ireland was a basket case until we lowered our taxes. Then business came in. The EU didnt do much for the 600,000 who left Ireland during the 80's did it?

The EU did not contribute to our boom other than the fact that they flooded us with cheap credit once we actually got up on our own two feet which actually promoted massively the sheer madness of the boom and enivitably the massive fall which came from that.

Lenihan is quoted actually saying that one of the things to cause this huge decline in Ireland is the cheap credit from Europe.

So what do the EU know anyway?

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

I've never found them to be either way on it, to be honest.

They, tend to be far more interested in Jade Goody and Jordan as headline pieces!

well what do you know

me goes to sky news site


and headlines are

* Jordan rape claim

* Susan Boyle shows america her talent

* Steaming pile of poo (i kid you not!)


http://i31.tinypic.com/121r9d1.png

K-9

Toiletroll wrote: »

Ireland was a basket case until we lowered our taxes. Then business came in. The EU didnt do much for the 600,000 who left Ireland during the 80's did it?

The EU did not contribute to our boom other than the fact that they flooded us with cheap credit once we actually got up on our own two feet which actually promoted massively the sheer madness of the boom and enivitably the massive fall which came from that.

Lenihan is quoted actually saying that one of the things to cause the bust in Ireland is the cheap credit from Europe.

So what do the EU know anyway?

The EU was always there, how we chose to use it was a matter for us. It was an enablor in our recovery, a big advantage to have. We went from being viewed like Spain, Portugal and Greece to a success story, until we gambled it all away in the last 5 years.

You should know well why Lenihan blames the cheap credit. I didn't see Cowen or Bertie doing too much about discouraging it either.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Blaming cheap credit for the bubble is like a fat guy blaming cheap food for his weight problem.

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Blaming cheap credit for the bubble is like a fat guy blaming cheap food for his weight problem.

not only that but he forgets to mention that EU membership allowed our people to work in other countries with no hassle

Toiletroll

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Blaming cheap credit for the bubble is like a fat guy blaming cheap food for his weight problem.

Well it came from Lenihan, the same fool that wants you to vote yes :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

who wrote the opinion piece?

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

Well it came from Lenihan, the same fool that wants you to vote yes :rolleyes:

hes from FF

who cares what they say

their days are numbered

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

who wrote the opinion piece?

toiletroll?

jokes aside thats a good question

Toiletroll

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not only that but he forgets to mention that EU membership allowed our people to work in other countries with no hassle

The EU is fine but Lisbon makes it a totally different beast altogether. There is nothing wrong with the EU in its current state. Lisbon is overkill imho!

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

The EU is fine but Lisbon makes it a totally different beast altogether. There is nothing wrong with the EU in its current state. Lisbon is overkill imho!

what exactly in Lisbon is an "overkill" ?

marco_polo

Hmm, a nameless op-ed piece that appeared in the European printed edition of the Wall Street Journal.

For a 'foreign' writer with no associations with Ireland at all whatsoever I swear, they sure have a very strong opnion on the matter. :rolleyes:

I call shennagians.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

Well it came from Lenihan, the same fool that wants you to vote yes :rolleyes:

Fortunately for me I can evaluate things on my own, and don't have to rely on Lenhian or the WSJ to do my thinking for me.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Hmm, a nameless op-ed piece that appeared in the European printed edition of the Wall Street Journal.

For a 'foreign' writer with no associations with Ireland at all whatsoever I swear, they sure have a very strong opnion on the matter. :rolleyes:

I call shennagians.

Are you suspecting a certain 'influential businessman' was involved?

O'Morris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

By and large.

So that's a no then.

Dinner wrote:

That article is completley ridiculous. Devoid of any kind of balance. Instead resortng to the same trash thats been floating around for months now, been forced to vote again, first result cast aside, incomprehensible treaty etc...

Isn't that just a bit over the top? All the article does is expose and counter the hysterical scaremongering about the consequences of a no vote by pointing out that Ireland's position in the EU will remain unchanged regardless of how we vote.

For example:

Last Friday, Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan told a press conference that "a 'No' vote will signal to the rest of the world that Ireland has retreated into economic isolation." This in turn would lead to capital flight from Ireland and higher interest rates and borrowing costs for the Irish economy.

If people on the no side can be criticised for making unfounded scaremongering claims then why shouldn't the yes side be held to the same standard. Or would you disagree with this quote from the end of the article:

It should never have come to this at all. When they do vote in two weeks, however, we hope that vote is an informed one, and not based on unfounded fear-mongering or dark threats.

Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

Martin 2

Toiletroll wrote: »

I think you need to re-evaluate the reasons those companies are supporting Lisbon.

Intel are in a huge multi-billion euro monopoly case with the EU where the EU want to fine them 1.4Bn due to monopoly issues with that canadian company AMD... Great way to get them to support it, with the appeal from Intel coming up shortly after Lisbon.

O Leary wanted to get rid of the pilot unions!

The WSJ doesn't mention Intel, and certainly doesn't mention your accusations in relation to any multinationals (probably libelous). Intel Ireland has mentioned on many occasions the damage that a No vote could do to Ireland's reputations for FDI, so their main reason for supporting a yes is that it's in the best interests of their operation here and their employees, there may be some patronage gained in Europe but that's incidental. But why look at just Intel; Pfizer, Oral B and HP have also come out in favour of Lisbon, are they all facing anti-trust fines and what about the countless other multinationals who come under the umbrella of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, why are they supporting a Yes? they are not all facing fines.

Btw, In a recent poll of economists ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0912/1224254386236.html ) “Just under 91 per cent of the economists expressed the belief a Yes vote best-served the economic interests of the State”

marco_polo

You couldn't make this stuff up, they did indeed publish some of the unconsolidated treaty text.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416803430776262.html

Still somebody is lacking the balls to put their name down against either piece.

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

The Yes campaign has been pretty sh*te, for the most part. As regards fear-mongering and dark threats, it seems they learned a lesson from the first result.

Toiletroll

O'Morris wrote: »

So that's a no then.




Isn't that just a bit over the top? All the article does is expose and counter the hysterical scaremongering about the consequences of a no vote by pointing out that Ireland's position in the EU will remain unchanged regardless of how we vote.

For example:



If people on the no side can be criticised for making unfounded scaremongering claims then why shouldn't the yes side be held to the same standard. Or would you disagree with this quote from the end of the article:



Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

Brilliant post! Very logical and back to reality of the matter.

BlitzKrieg

Regardless of whether or not you believe there's any truth to it, you have to admit that in this second referendum campaign that the yes side is heavily reliant on the fear-mongering and dark threats about the consequences of a no vote.

i have to ask.

Who hasnt relied on fear mongering and dark threats in this campaign?

both sides have done nothing else. Accusing one side of doing it more then the other is idiocy because both sides have done nothing else.

if you dont want fear mongering and dark threats then educate yourself on the treaty and make your own decision.


I still want to know who wrote th piece though.

Toiletroll

Martin 2 wrote: »

The WSJ doesn't mention Intel, and certainly doesn't mention your accusations in relation to any multinationals (probably libelous). Intel Ireland has mentioned on many occasions the damage that a No vote could do to Ireland's reputations for FDI, so their main reason for supporting a yes is that it's in the best interests of their operation here and their employees, there may be some patronage gained in Europe but that's incidental. But why look at just Intel; Pfizer, Oral B and HP have also come out in favour of Lisbon, are they all facing anti-trust fines and what about the countless other multinationals who come under the umbrella of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, why are they supporting a Yes? they are not all facing fines.

Btw, In a recent poll of economists ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0912/1224254386236.html ) “Just under 91 per cent of the economists expressed the belief a Yes vote best-served the economic interests of the State”

The Irish Times - Thanks for the unbiased link!

The same paper had polls last year favouring the yes up to the day before the vote but we know how that turned out.

Also - 91% of selected economists. There was another unbiased poll of economists done after that one which showed almost 50 / 50%

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

You couldn't make this stuff up, they did indeed publish some of the unconsolidated treaty text.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416803430776262.html

A blatant attempt to baffle rather than educate, to cast shadow instead of light. The WSJ ought to be ashamed of itself, it's just joined my 'never buy this rag' list.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Toiletroll wrote: »

Also - 91% of selected economists. There was another unbiased poll of economists done after that one which showed almost 50 / 50%

Interesting... got a link?

marco_polo

Incidenly the OP was ripped word for word from a known Libertas online hideout that shall remain nameless.

Interesting anonoymous Libertas Blog here too. Apparently the quoted piece is doing the email rounds.

http://libertasinsider.blogspot.com/2009/09/libertas-back-in-game.html

INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS READ TRUTH ABOUT LISBON WHILE YES SIDE LIE – GANLEY

“3 million global business leaders are reading the truth about the Lisbon Treaty this morning while the people of Ireland pass lamp-posts littered with lies on their way to work” Libertas Leader Declan Ganley has said today.

Mr. Ganley was responding to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal which said that Finance Minister Brian Lenihan was “peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes”. The paper also said that “no sane businessman” would see a No to Lisbon as a “vote against Europe”, and that Ireland had “no reason to fear the consequences of a No vote”.

Responding, Mr. Ganley said that it was absolutely clear that the only job saved by the Lisbon Treaty would be Brian Cowen’s:

“It’s a sad day when 3 million global business leaders are told the truth by the world’s most famous business newspaper, while the same number and more of Irish people are having the truth hidden from them”,

“This Treaty has absolutely nothing to do with jobs or the economy. It has everything to do with a fanatical class of deluded people at the top of Irish society who are determined to have their way at any cost.”

“The truth is that despite hanging thousands of bland, misleading posters across the country, and rolling out about a hundred astroturf groups made up of the same small fanatical band of professional Brussels-leeches, the Yes side cannot point to a single job this piece of junk treaty would create”.

“Meanwhile, in the real world, the bible of the international investor is telling its readers the truth. There will be no jobs. Ireland will not be a better place to invest. The Government is telling lies. And No sane businessman agrees with their ideas.”

“So, who will the Irish people believe? The same Government that has brought the country to the edge of an economic cliff, or the 33-time Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper which is read by every serious investor on the planet?”

“Other than Brian Cowen’s, the yes side cannot point to a single job that this treaty will create. And therein lies the answer to the question”

Martin 2

Toiletroll wrote: »

The Irish Times - Thanks for the unbiased link!

The same paper had polls last year favouring the yes up to the day before the vote but we know how that turned out.

Also - 91% of selected economists. There was another unbiased poll of economists done after that one which showed almost 50 / 50%

It's not an IT survey, they are only publishing the results, the primary source is here: http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/aw_lisbon_sept.pdf
What's the source for the survey you mention?
What are your comments on the fact that not all MNC's are facing EU fines but yet support a Yes vote?