'No' vote would add €210m to cost of national debt

meglome

Tuesday September 22 2009

THE cost of funding the national debt could shoot up by more than €200m next year, if Irish voters reject the Lisbon Treaty in next month's referendum, leading economists warned last night.

Bloxham managing partner Pramit Ghose said a 'No' vote was likely to widen the gap between interest rates charged on Irish government bonds and those paid on similar German bonds.

Dan O'Brien, senior economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said that he had "absolutely no doubt" a 'No' vote would result in a sell-off of government debt."I would bet the house on that," he told the Irish Independent.

And Mr O'Brien said that the explosion in government debt in recent months meant the country was now "way out there past Greece, with its head above the parapet".

He said that a 'No' vote would mean Ireland "making itself a target" for a massive sell-off in government bonds, as it would put a doubt in the mind of some of the market players over whether Ireland would continue to be part of the European Union. Other economists agreed. KBC Bank's Austin Hughes said a rejection of the treaty was likely to be seen as a negative in the bond markets.

"There is no doubt that there could be an impact, though it is impossible to put an exact figure on it.

Mr Hughes added that the long-term cost would ultimately depend on how the other EU members decided to proceed in the event of a 'no' vote by the Irish public, with a two-speed Europe a distinct possibility. While Mr Hughes was reluctant to put a precise figure on the cost of a rejection, Mr Ghose estimated it at over €200m in the coming year.

The additional cost would arise because the gap, or spread, between Irish and German bonds would widen.

He estimated that a 1pc increase in funding costs next year would lead to €210m in extra costs on the national debt.

- Pat Boyle

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/no-vote-would-add-8364210m-to-cost-of-national-debt-1892641.html

Interesting.

Captain Furball

Who cares? We already owe 70 billion.

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

Who cares? We already owe 70 billion.

Sorry my man but I care. I don't want my grandchildren paying for this mess.

Captain Furball

You having a laugh? 200 million is pocket change my man.
Why not book a few hotels and a private jet for yourself. We are loaded bud no need to be scared.

200motels

meglome wrote: »

Sorry my man but I care. I don't want my grandchildren paying for this mess.

Your having a laugh. No No.

ei.sdraob

Captain Furball wrote: »

You having a laugh? 200 million is pocket change my man.

Ganley is that thou?

force eleven

Mr O Brien has got it 'slightly' wrong before in his prognostications....

....the global gloom is overdone. Investor sentiment internationally has over-reacted to America’s woes. Moreover, the US policy response to the slowdown has been unprecedented, both in its speed and its magnitude. Outside the US, the rest of the global economy is enjoying one of its strongest periods of economic expansion ever. As most of this is driven by strong fundamentals, we at the Economist Intelligence Unit are forecasting only a modest slowdown globally in 2008 and continued strong expansion over the medium term.” (Dan O’Brien, Quarterly Daft Report, 12 February 2008)

No doubt he is another corporate Yes supporter....sheesh :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

force eleven wrote: »

No doubt he is another corporate Yes supporter....sheesh :rolleyes:

compared to a certain British bold guy who likes to speak for the NO side, with connections to US generals involved in starting Iraq quaqmire and selling weapons

:rolleyes:

ShooterSF

As is often asked of no claims. Eh where does lisbon mention national debt? More scaremongering. Sigh.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

As is often asked of no claims. Eh where does lisbon mention national debt? More scaremongering. Sigh.

The no side makes specific claims directly by the treaty, eg that it will make EU law superior to Irish law, that the guarantees are not really legally binding, that our corporation tax can be effected after Lisbon or that it will remove our right to future referendums. Such claims are provably false. This, however, is a matter of opinion. It is to do with confidence in Ireland as a business location and as a fully fledged EU member going into the future. We already pay more interest than our neighbours because the central bank does not have the same confidence in us as it does Germany.

Confidence and uncertainty are not written down in a treaty, there is no clause that says "Confidence in Ireland in the mind of the CEO of AMD will be set at 94% and uncertainty at 3.6% and this will cause him to create 147 new jobs here through a research project". But just because it's not written down in the treaty does not mean that it should be ignored or that pointing it out is scaremongering. You and I both know that this treaty and Ireland's acceptance or rejection of it will have implications far beyond the text written in it and pretending otherwise and insisting on a treaty article that legally sets confidence levels is disingenuous.

Here's an extract from an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

Mr Cowen said all the main business groupings and the Irish heads of several multi-national firms were “crystal clear” in their view that reluctance to endorse the treaty, together with the resulting perception that “we are somewhat a-la-carte in terms of our commitment to Europe”, would make it more difficult to attract and secure inward investment.

“Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, to the exporters of Ireland, to the farmers’ representative groups and to the employers themselves.

“Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.”

As I'm sure you know both Intel and Ryanair have started campaigns for a yes vote. What do all these businesses, employers groups, multi-national firms, exporters and economists have to gain from pretending that a yes vote to Lisbon will help the economy?

Martin 2

Captain Furball wrote: »

Who cares? We already owe 70 billion.

€70 billion (€90 billion in link) is the debt total, €200 million is the additional interest repayments however that €200 million I believe is just on the this year's deficit, the real increase due to a possible 1% hike in interest is closer to €700million (€900m in link), see link .

alrightcuz

since Eu membership " estimated European vessels have taken up to 200 BILLION worth of fish out of our waters add fish processing and the value of the fish jumps to around 600 BILLION - 10 TIMES the 60 Billion we received from Brussels.

DEATH PAID IN FULL WE OWE EU NOTING
and when u think about it thats probably why the helped us anyway they saw our fish reserve next they'll exploit our enormous gas and oil reserves.

out of 27 EU states only ireland ,thanks to our constitution got the right to vote and when no was the the answer they got,,, we have to do it again.

noting has changed in the Lisbon treaty and it would be dishonest to suggest otherwise and the guarantees are not legally binding,only promises that will be included in a treaty at some unknown time in the future

would u sign a contract that was based on promises and word of mouth,,,

Martin 2

ShooterSF wrote: »

As is often asked of no claims. Eh where does lisbon mention national debt? More scaremongering. Sigh.

It's not what's in the treaty (in the short term) that affects our debt repayments but the treaty's acceptance or rejection. If you look at Standards & Poors sovereign credit rating criteria, political risk is at the top of the list. A No vote probably represents a greater political risk than a Yes vote both in Ireland and the EU. A lower credit rating will affect Ireland’s ability to borrow and the interest rate we pay. This is not scaremongering but reasonable economic forecasting.

ei.sdraob

alrightcuz wrote: »

DEATH PAID IN FULL WE OWE EU NOTING

I taught my grammar was bad :eek:

how about you read this thread

A realistic tax-take from the Irish fishing industry, ~ €1bn over 35 years.


that 200 billion figure was pulled out of one big dark arse by someone with no clue and with no provided references to backup such a crazy lie

PopeBuckfastXVI

alrightcuz wrote: »

since Eu membership " estimated European vessels have taken up to 200 BILLION worth of fish out of our waters add fish processing and the value of the fish jumps to around 600 BILLION - 10 TIMES the 60 Billion we received from Brussels.

DEATH PAID IN FULL WE OWE EU NOTING
and when u think about it thats probably why the helped us anyway they saw our fish reserve next they'll exploit our enormous gas and oil reserves.

Hi there, can you please provide a link to an official source for these figures?

alrightcuz wrote: »

out of 27 EU states only ireland ,thanks to our constitution got the right to vote and when no was the the answer they got,,, we have to do it again.

noting has changed in the Lisbon treaty and it would be dishonest to suggest otherwise and the guarantees are not legally binding,only promises that will be included in a treaty at some unknown time in the future

would u sign a contract that was based on promises and word of mouth,,,

Actually the guarantees are legally binding, as they will take the form of a full international treaty, lodged with the UN under the Vienna Convention. They will have the same force in international law as the Good Friday Agreement.

Martin 2

alrightcuz wrote: »

since Eu membership " estimated European vessels have taken up to 200 BILLION worth of fish out of our waters add fish processing and the value of the fish jumps to around 600 BILLION - 10 TIMES the 60 Billion we received from Brussels.

DEATH PAID IN FULL WE OWE EU NOTING
and when u think about it thats probably why the helped us anyway they saw our fish reserve next they'll exploit our enormous gas and oil reserves.

out of 27 EU states only ireland ,thanks to our constitution got the right to vote and when no was the the answer they got,,, we have to do it again.

noting has changed in the Lisbon treaty and it would be dishonest to suggest otherwise and the guarantees are not legally binding,only promises that will be included in a treaty at some unknown time in the future

would u sign a contract that was based on promises and word of mouth,,,

That figure has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you're not aware of it and given that it appears on a Coir poster I would have thought it would have set alarm bells ringing.
See http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/

Is it true that foreign fleets have taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters?
No. The total value of fish taken from Irish waters between 1974 and 2004 was about €8.5 billion. This figure includes fish caught by both foreign and Irish boats.

Scofflaw's figure as referenced in Ei.sdraob's post is for estimated tax take whereas the figure for the talktoeu website is for value

Kenners

This is blatant scare mongering.Simply put and devoid of all the bullcrap, Voting 'Yes' allows the EU to bypass our constitution. That same constitution that gave us our referendum in the first place. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified we will no longer have a say in the direction of Europe and our own country. It will be 'representative democracy' from then on which is code for the political and corporate classes ruling the peons.
Why would you want to allow a union that did not respect our voice the first time to bypass our own constitution now? It makes no sense! Why would you vote 'yes' in order to lose your vote in the future? How is that possibly a good idea? What would possess someone to do that? It's insane. This is a classic 'Bait and switch' sugar-coated up and fed to the yuppies.
The political class and the Eurocrates think we are too stupid to know what we are voting on. I actually can't believe that there are people who will turn a blind eye to the blatant disregard of our democratic vote and force us to vote again. What the hell is wrong with people. It's 'in-your-face-tyranny' and there are still those who will welcome it warmly. I'm stunned. I thought we were living in a republic anyhoo?

O'Morris

Sam Vimes wrote:

As I'm sure you know both Intel and Ryanair have started campaigns for a yes vote. What do all these businesses, employers groups, multi-national firms, exporters and economists have to gain from pretending that a yes vote to Lisbon will help the economy?

They gain powerful friends in Europe.

Martin 2 wrote:

It's not what's in the treaty (in the short term) that affects our debt repayments but the treaty's acceptance or rejection.

If that's the case why did Brian Cowen agree to holding a second referendum? If rejecting the treaty will have negative economic consequences why did they risk a second rejection of the treaty by the Irish electorate when they had the power to prevent it? It's not as if the Irish government was under any pressure to hold a second referendum, and if they were under pressure, they could have easily found a way to minimise the economic impact of a no vote.

If I was in Brian Cowen's position I would have written up a declaration to be signed by all other governments guaranteeing Ireland's position in Europe. I would have insisted on this declaration being signed before making any moves to hold a second referendum. That would have helped address the uncertainty about our future and would have reassured investors.

Dinner

Kenners wrote: »

This is blatant scare mongering.Simply put and devoid of all the bullcrap, Voting 'Yes' allows the EU to bypass our constitution. That same constitution that gave us our referendum in the first place. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified we will no longer have a say in the direction of Europe and our own country. It will be 'representative democracy' from then on which is code for the political and corporate classes ruling the peons.
Why would you want to allow a union that did not respect our voice the first time to bypass our own constitution now? It makes no sense! Why would you vote 'yes' in order to lose your vote in the future? How is that possibly a good idea? What would possess someone to do that? It's insane. This is a classic 'Bait and switch' sugar-coated up and fed to the yuppies.
The political class and the Eurocrates think we are too stupid to know what we are voting on. I actually can't believe that there are people who will turn a blind eye to the blatant disregard of our democratic vote and force us to vote again. What the hell is wrong with people. It's 'in-your-face-tyranny' and there are still those who will welcome it warmly. I'm stunned. I thought we were living in a republic anyhoo?

I think you should so a little bit more research into Lisbon. If we vote yes we will still have future referenda, you know that right?

Voting yes does not allow the EU to 'bypass our constitution'.

And it is perfectly democratic to try and solve the issue sheld by the public and then ask them to vote again.

ei.sdraob

Martin 2 wrote: »

That figure has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you're not aware of it and given that it appears on a Coir poster I would have thought it would have set alarm bells ringing.
See http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/
Scofflaw's figure as referenced in Ei.sdraob's post is for estimated tax take whereas the figure for the talktoeu website is for value

thanks for the link!

that 200billion is so far of the charts it may as well be in the Indian ocean

Is it true that foreign fleets have taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters?

---

No. The total value of fish taken from Irish waters between 1974 and 2004 was about €8.5 billion. This figure includes fish caught by both foreign and Irish boats.

Hydrosylator

There is no doubt that there could be an impact, though it is impossible to put an exact figure on it.

The most important part of the whole thing. He's making this **** up.

He estimated that a 1pc increase in funding costs next year would lead to €210m in extra costs on the national debt.

Yeah I believe him that a 1pc increase would do that. What's the basis for estimating based on such an increase?

Who with any authority has indicated that this could happen?

Scaremongering.

oscarBravo

Kenners wrote: »

Simply put and devoid of all the bullcrap, Voting 'Yes' allows the EU to bypass our constitution.

That's your idea of "devoid of bullcrap"?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that 200billion is so far of the charts it may as well be in the Indian ocean

It's inflating at an alarming rate. I'm pretty sure I saw €400bn mentioned in the letters page of today's Times.

(edit: actually I think it was yesterday's)

Biggins

I getting tired now of the scaremongering from both sides.

alrightcuz

how about you read these

http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/90719-iceland-lisbon-feargasms-propoganda.html
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/87893-no-more-issues-should-decided-one-country-french-foreign-minister.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNjExNDYyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Daftendirekt

Kenners wrote: »

This is blatant scare mongering:

Simply put and devoid of all the bullcrap, Voting 'Yes' allows the EU to bypass our constitution. That same constitution that gave us our referendum in the first place. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified we will no longer have a say in the direction of Europe and our own country. It will be 'representative democracy' from then on which is code for the political and corporate classes ruling the peons.
Why would you want to allow a union that did not respect our voice the first time to bypass our own constitution now? It makes no sense! Why would you vote 'yes' in order to lose your vote in the future? How is that possibly a good idea? What would possess someone to do that? It's insane. This is a classic 'Bait and switch' sugar-coated up and fed to the yuppies.
The political class and the Eurocrates think we are too stupid to know what we are voting on. I actually can't believe that there are people who will turn a blind eye to the blatant disregard of our democratic vote and force us to vote again. What the hell is wrong with people. It's 'in-your-face-tyranny' and there are still those who will welcome it warmly. I'm stunned. I thought we were living in a republic anyhoo?

Fixed your post.

oscarBravo

Biggins wrote: »

I getting tired now of the scaremongering from both sides.

I'm getting pretty tired of the word "scaremongering" being overused.

It seems that any mention of a possible negative consequence gets labeled "scaremongering", and discounted. Which leads me to wonder: do people genuinely believe that there can't possibly be any negative consequences of voting either way? Or do they accept that there could be negative consequences, but they would rather not be told about them?

Orifiel

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's your idea of "devoid of bullcrap"?

It's inflating at an alarming rate. I'm pretty sure I saw €400bn mentioned in the letters page of today's Times.

(edit: actually I think it was yesterday's)

Can you please post a link for that claim? I tried searching but couldn't find it.

It would be nice to read the piece.

Thank you.

oscarBravo

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0922/1224254990283.html

Firefly Fan

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm getting pretty tired of the word "scaremongering" being overused.

It seems that any mention of a possible negative consequence gets labelled "scaremongering", and discounted. Which leads me to wonder: do people genuinely believe that there can't possibly be any negative consequences of voting either way? Or do they accept that there could be negative consequences, but they would rather not be told about them?

For me, if any treaty, change of law or proposal is anyway good, it should be sell-able on its merit, its advantages alone.
Having to resort to using negative, possibly "scaremongering" tactics is a very bad way to advocate something that is supposed to make us all smile at its advantages, not show a face of fear when warned of not choosing that choice.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

do people genuinely believe that there can't possibly be any negative consequences of voting either way? Or do they accept that there could be negative consequences, but they would rather not be told about them?

I get the distinct impression that most people actively involved in the promotion of either side only want people to believe there are negative consequences for voting against their recommendations.

Scofflaw

Martin 2 wrote: »

That figure has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you're not aware of it and given that it appears on a Coir poster I would have thought it would have set alarm bells ringing.
See http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/
Scofflaw's figure as referenced in Ei.sdraob's post is for estimated tax take whereas the figure for the talktoeu website is for value

What's interesting, and something I hadn't known before, is that the author of the €200bn figure - Tom Prendiville - works for Gael Poll (who have just released a quite extraordinary poll), who in turn are a 'spinoff' from the Hibernian magazine. Gael Poll's recent Lisbon 'survey', in turn, was released through Farmers for No and Libertas.

The thick plottens, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Colpriz

210 million?..ask me netherland

how much is it costing us to vote AGAIN, when we already voted????
add to that a failed computerised voting system??? Sure we have buckets of money to throw away!!

Sam Vimes

O'Morris wrote: »

They gain powerful friends in Europe.

So you think trade unions, farmers groups, employers groups, the chambers of commerce of several cities (afaik) and 91% of economists who gave answers in an anonymous poll are all lying to the Irish people and cajoling us to vote yes so that they can gain powerful friends in Europe. I don't really know what to say to that. It seems everyone is lying except the people who have been proven over and over and over again to be lying. I honestly find it fascinating what people can bring themselves to believe when they desperately want something to be true

Kenners wrote: »

This is blatant scare mongering.Simply put and devoid of all the bullcrap, Voting 'Yes' allows the EU to bypass our constitution. That same constitution that gave us our referendum in the first place. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified we will no longer have a say in the direction of Europe and our own country. It will be 'representative democracy' from then on which is code for the political and corporate classes ruling the peons.

I find it ironic that you used the phrase 'devoid of bullcrap' and then proceeded to give a big pile of bullcrap. It's not your fault, you've been subjected to a determined campaign of lies and you had no way of knowing they were lying, they can appear very convincing. I can assure you, as others have, that that is not true

Scofflaw

Colpriz wrote: »

210 million?..ask me netherland

how much is it costing us to vote AGAIN, when we already voted????
add to that a failed computerised voting system??? Sure we have buckets of money to throw away!!

Is that an argument against holding a general election - we can't afford it? Or would everyone be OK with that particular piece of expenditure?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nullzero

This idea is pure conjecture.
Just because somebody has a platfrom to say something may happen doesn't mean it is going to happen. More fearing mongering I'm afraid, no evidence of anything else.

View

nullzero wrote: »

This idea is pure conjecture.
Just because somebody has a platfrom to say something may happen doesn't mean it is going to happen. More fearing mongering I'm afraid, no evidence of anything else.

Just because something is conjecture doesn't mean it is fear mongering.

For instance, it is conjecture to speculate what will happen if no efforts are made to right the state's finances, however it can be scarcely be described as fear mongering to say the consequences of such a policy would be far worse than making an effort to turn the state's finances around, particularly given that we have direct experience of such inaction in the late 70s/early 80s.

Martin 2

alrightcuz wrote: »

how about you read these

http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/90719-iceland-lisbon-feargasms-propoganda.html
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/87893-no-more-issues-should-decided-one-country-french-foreign-minister.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNjExNDYyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Website #1
The post you reference leaves out a lot; Iceland went through a financial meltdown where amongst other things interest rates went as high as 18% (still ~12%) and the value of the Icelandic Krona dropped by over 60% relative to the euro. From an Irish perspective, imagine your mortgage interest rate went up from 3.2% currently to 18%. The drop in value of their currency also made the purchase of imports (virtually everything for Iceland) very expensive. Iceland was eventually bailed out ($4.6 billion) by the IMF and four Nordic countries. This hasn't happened to us because we're in the Eurozone and because of ECB liquidity support.
The Icelandic comparison has more to do with the membership of the EU than the Lisbon treaty, are you suggesting we leave the EU to be more like Iceland? We were on our own before and it was a spectacular failure.


Website #3
This article was heavily discussed in this thread, link; strongly suggest you read it as you may get a different perspective.
With the regard to the Irish economy, you can take the word of an unnamed author on the Rupert Murdoch controlled WSJ European edition or you can take the word of Irish based multinationals, businesses and economists. So which is it?

hobochris

this is just speculation and opinion.

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

this is just speculation and opinion.

If there was someone in the world was able to give anything more than educated speculation and opinion about the future of the economy then he would be a very rich man indeed. But what it's not is baseless scaremongering which is what the dire predictions of certain no campaigners are.

Martin 2

Hydrosylator wrote: »

There is no doubt that there could be an impact, though it is impossible to put an exact figure on it.

The most important part of the whole thing. He's making this **** up.

The reason is simply that they are trying to predict what future interest rates will be and as with all economic forecasting especially where there many variables, it is not an exact science, economists can only make informed estimates.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

He estimated that a 1pc increase in funding costs next year would lead to €210m in extra costs on the national debt.

Yeah I believe him that a 1pc increase would do that. What's the basis for estimating based on such an increase?

Who with any authority has indicated that this could happen?

In actual fact that article is either wrong or misleading, the real extra cost of a 1% increase in interest rates would be between 700-900million depending on what you take the current national debt to be, see link1 or link2. The 200million figure I believe refers to the cost of an extra 1% on the amount being borrowed this year (€25 billion).
A 1% hike in bond premiums is not unreasonable after a seismic event such as a final No vote, after all we have already seen a drop of over 1% since march due to the international perception that Ireland is dealing with its economic problems. Here's an interesting article on government debt from Alan McQuaid, chief economist at Bloxham Stockbrokers: link

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Scaremongering.

That word trips off the tongue of no campaigners far too easily, and in fact you may be doing people a disservice if you are masking genuine economic risks.

hobochris

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there was someone in the world was able to give anything more than educated speculation and opinion about the future of the economy then he would be a very rich man indeed. But what it's not is baseless scaremongering which is what the dire predictions of certain no campaigners are.

Add generalized slander to my above list as well.

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

I will question scaremongering like this regardless of which side it comes from.

ei.sdraob

hobochris wrote: »

Add generalized slander to my above list as well.

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

I will question scaremongering like this regardless of which side it comes from.

the force is strong with this one and he has more than 5 posts

@hobochris

you want to join the debate here, staff are having a hard time finding volunteers for the NO side of the debate

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055689554

PopeBuckfastXVI

hobochris wrote: »

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

It makes you incorrect in mine.

Here's a fact:
QMV is currently the voting procedure of the European Council, and has been all along.

http://www.ena.lu/?doc=21822&lang=02

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

Add generalized slander to my above list as well.

I used the words 'certain no campaigners' specifically to avoid the diversionary 'generalisation' accusation but you went ahead and used it anyway. congrats

hobochris wrote: »

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

Sorry facts on what? Do you want me to prove the future? Should I give you next week's lotto numbers while I'm at it?

hobochris wrote: »

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

QMV already exists in a large number of areas. You know that right? And why are you so against QMV? Do you think it's good that the UN embargo on Cuba can't be lifted even though pretty much every country in the world wants it, because the US has a veto? Or that sanctions can't be put on Israel, again because the US vetos it? Or that sanctions can't be put on Sudan because China vetoes it because of their business interests there?

hobochris wrote: »

I will question scaremongering like this regardless of which side it comes from.

My definition of scaremongering is predicting something that's not going to happen. An opinion that says something scary might happen is not scaremongering if there is a real possibility that the prediction will happen. If I tell you that if you walk around with your eyes closed you might get hit by a car is that scaremongering, or is that good advice?


Also, could you give me some examples of scaremongering from the no side? Shouldn't be too hard.