Protest Vote?

Boskowski

On the property pin an interesting discussion is happening while looking for (desperate) options to stop NAMA.

A case is being made that a 'No' to Lisbon has big potential to bring the government down and could therefore be used to stop NAMA. It seems a majority over there argues that a 'No' to Lisbon isn't that bad and by no means irreparable while NAMA is. And that while a 'No' to Lisbon is not guaranteed to topple the FF government it's the only lever we have.

Another idea is to have FG and Labour making statements of intent to reverse and not honor the NAMA commitment after the inevitable FF election defeat next year or so. Which would render NAMA useless right from the start.

I thought about it after reading the threads and while I can't see the second one happening I'm beginning to like the first one.

Opinions?

Amhran Nua

A no to Lisbon won't bring down this government, they will hold on as long as possible. FG and Labour haven't got what it takes to brass out the backlash from refusing to honour NAMA agreements and interest payments. They may very well be just as happy sitting it out on the opposition benches.

Something new is needed to derail this train.

anonymous_joe

realcam wrote: »

On the property pin an interesting discussion is happening while looking for (desperate) options to stop NAMA.

A case is being made that a 'No' to Lisbon has big potential to bring the government down and could therefore be used to stop NAMA. It seems a majority over there argues that a 'No' to Lisbon isn't that bad and by no means irreparable while NAMA is. And that while a 'No' to Lisbon is not guaranteed to topple the FF government it's the only lever we have.

Another idea is to have FG and Labour making statements of intent to reverse and not honor the NAMA commitment after the inevitable FF election defeat next year or so. Which would render NAMA useless right from the start.

I thought about it after reading the threads and while I can't see the second one happening I'm beginning to like the first one.

Opinions?

A No vote didn't get Fianna Fáil out last time. Why do the same thing again? Vote No if you've a real objection to the treaty, if you're doing it to get FF out, I really really really hope you don't vote.

Boskowski

anonymous_joe wrote: »

A No vote didn't get Fianna Fáil out last time. Why do the same thing again? Vote No if you've a real objection to the treaty, if you're doing it to get FF out, I really really really hope you don't vote.

Because a second 'No' vote would be much more serious and would clearly highlight the fact the government has no mandate whatsoever on anything these days?

On the second point, I can assure you I won't vote - simply because I can't. And while I'm not an Irish citizen, I am a resident and taxpayer and if I could I would seriously consider a protest vote.

As it happens I am also opposed to Lisbon for its democratic deficiencies, but I don't feel half as strongly about Lisbon as I feel about NAMA. I'm even beginning to come round on Lisbon lately. But I think we have to try and stop NAMA - no matter what.

anonymous_joe

realcam wrote: »

Because a second 'No' vote would be much more serious and would clearly highlight the fact the government has no mandate whatsoever on anything these days?

On the second point, I can assure you I won't vote - simply because I can't. And while I'm not an Irish citizen, I am a resident and taxpayer and if I could I would seriously consider a protest vote.

As it happens I am also opposed to Lisbon for its democratic deficiencies, but I don't feel half as strongly about Lisbon as I feel about NAMA. I'm even beginning to come round on Lisbon lately. But I think we have to try and stop NAMA - no matter what.

Thing is, ignoring my opinions. (I'm yes on Lisbon (though not fanatically so) and will accept Nama unless there's a substitute presented) I just don't think the Faffers will go. I really hate Fianna Fáil, I've never voted for 'em and never will, but they won;t leave. For one thing, it's in their best interest to stay in goverment until there's some sign of recovery so that they can go out and claim to have steered us through the storm and rebuild their shattered rep.

Boskowski

anonymous_joe wrote: »

For one thing, it's in their best interest to stay in goverment until there's some sign of recovery so that they can go out and claim to have steered us through the storm and rebuild their shattered rep.

One of the things I have with NAMA - besides the obvious ones - is that it diametrically opposes economic recovery.
It brushes ethical and political issues under the carpet, it prevents cleansing of the market, it will keep prices, wages, everything artificially high and will therefore reduce Irelands economic competitiveness. Basically, NAMA will be the nail in the coffin I think.
Can't see where those signs of recovery would come from.

anonymous_joe

realcam wrote: »

One of the things I have with NAMA - besides the obvious ones - is that it diametrically opposes economic recovery.
It brushes ethical and political issues under the carpet, it prevents cleansing of the market, it will keep prices, wages, everything artificially high and will therefore reduce Irelands economic competitiveness. Basically, NAMA will be the nail in the coffin I think.
Can't see where those signs of recovery would come from.

I know what you mean. On the other hand, Lehmans Brothers collapsing started all of this. Letting banks die would kill our nation's economy. Not damage it, kill it.

Boskowski

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I know what you mean. On the other hand, Lehmans Brothers collapsing started all of this. Letting banks die would kill our nation's economy. Not damage it, kill it.

Only the Irish problem is not a Lehmann Brothers problem.
I don't hear the banks screaming for money because they're sitting on dodgy US investment papers like the rest of the world. They're screaming for money because they're sitting on an entirely homemade problem.
If nothing else we should be thankful to the global recession because otherwise it would have allowed the domestic schemers to continue their carry-on for I don't know how long.
I don't believe the myth we're going down if Anglo-Irish goes belly-up and say - BOI - takes a big hit bringing at to the verge of nationalization. I believe its far more dangerous to brush things under the carpet and let the impertinent Irish 'business model' continue.

Amhran Nua

anonymous_joe wrote: »

will accept Nama unless there's a substitute presented

There are plenty of substitutes which have been put forward over the last while, which don't cost the taxpayer a penny. David McWilliams, Dermot Desmond, and ourselves.

mickoneill30

realcam wrote: »

A case is being made that a 'No' to Lisbon has big potential to bring the government down and could therefore be used to stop NAMA.

Not a credible case though. These guys want a No vote. A lot of the No side is just lumping on whatever argument will get more votes for No.

FF won't go voluntarily. Really, why would they? Don't they need a vote of no confidence so as long as they have a majority they'll stay in power. The Greens would be mad (as in for their own party) to bring down the government as they'll probably come back with less seats next time too.

If you disagree to Lisbon then vote No. Don't vote No because of a stupid reason that will make no difference anyway.

Count Dooku

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I know what you mean. On the other hand, Lehmans Brothers collapsing started all of this. Letting banks die would kill our nation's economy. Not damage it, kill it.

Why?
In September 1998 90% of Russian banks collapsed within one week. Oil prices were low at this time and didn’t grow until US invaded into Iraq.
But Russian economy managed to restore within two years.

Why Ireland cannot do the same?

Boskowski

Count Dooku wrote: »

Why?
In September 1998 90% of Russian banks collapsed within one week. Oil prices were low at this time and didn’t grow until US invaded into Iraq.
But Russian economy managed to restore within two years.

Why Ireland cannot do the same?

I know this doesn't sound right as I'm actually on your side, but...

...because Russia actually has a strong industry and natural resources like oil and such?

anonymous_joe

realcam wrote: »

Only the Irish problem is not a Lehmann Brothers problem.
I don't hear the banks screaming for money because they're sitting on dodgy US investment papers like the rest of the world. They're screaming for money because they're sitting on an entirely homemade problem.
If nothing else we should be thankful to the global recession because otherwise it would have allowed the domestic schemers to continue their carry-on for I don't know how long.
I don't believe the myth we're going down if Anglo-Irish goes belly-up and say - BOI - takes a big hit bringing at to the verge of nationalization. I believe its far more dangerous to brush things under the carpet and let the impertinent Irish 'business model' continue.

The cause of the problems is not the issue, the effect of letting them die is.

In times like these the priority should be fixing, blame can wait.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There are plenty of substitutes which have been put forward over the last while, which don't cost the taxpayer a penny. David McWilliams, Dermot Desmond, and ourselves.

Such as? What would you do.

Count Dooku wrote: »

Why?
In September 1998 90% of Russian banks collapsed within one week. Oil prices were low at this time and didn’t grow until US invaded into Iraq.
But Russian economy managed to restore within two years.

Why Ireland cannot do the same?

Because our oil reserves aren't as big? :pac:

jady88

Count Dooku wrote: »

Why?
In September 1998 90% of Russian banks collapsed within one week. Oil prices were low at this time and didn’t grow until US invaded into Iraq.
But Russian economy managed to restore within two years.

Why Ireland cannot do the same?

There are several reasons, to begin with your assertion that oil prices didn't rise again until the Iraq war is false they grew from the end of 1998 until 200 which helped Russia balance it's budget and grow.

Secondly Russia economy was far less developed than ours is now and much less reliant on banks.

Thirdly the Russia currency experienced a severe devaluation which ours has not and will not even if every bank in the country collapsed because we are part of the euro.

Amhran Nua

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Such as? What would you do.

Here, take a look, been there since March, McWilliams' from last week is basically the same, Dermot Desmond's proposal can be readily googled.

mickstupp

Vote yes or vote no... whether or not the government falls we'll still have a shower of complete morons in charge of the country.
Bearing that in mind, I'm not letting NAMA or the unending farce in the Dail have any effect on my voting for or against Lisbon.

anonymous_joe

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Here, take a look, been there since March, McWilliams' from last week is basically the same, Dermot Desmond's proposal can be readily googled.

Some good stuff in there.

Although some of the more sensible stuff would never be put in place by an Irish government... :rolleyes:

Amhran Nua

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Although some of the more sensible stuff would never be put in place by an Irish government... :rolleyes:

Thats why we're aiming to become the Irish government.

Count Dooku

realcam wrote: »

I know this doesn't sound right as I'm actually on your side, but...

...because Russia actually has a strong industry and natural resources like oil and such?

Oil didn’t do anything for recovery.
If you will have a look on oil prices, you will see that in 1999 prices were lower then in 1998.

Industry has been ruined after collapse of Soviet Union. It was 10 years of chaos and privatisations. Most of factories were not working, on half of remaining factories workers didn’t receive salaries for years. All money was going into financial sector. As soon as parasitic financial sector has been destroyed, money started to flow into industry and Russia started to recover.