Has Ireland become a nation of yes men? - interesting account of Irish economy wrt EU

Kalashnikov_Kid

If you want a very good empirical perspective of the Irish economy over the last 15 years in relation to Europe, you should read this article (and ignore some of the predictable charicatures).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1793511.html

As a proud Irishman living abroad for the last year, it certainly put things in perspective from me - a no-holds-barred objective account of the present state of the Irish economy in relation to the EU.

In short, Ireland is ****ed and we'd be commiting economic suicide if we voted No again. And we won't sacrifice anything in return IMO. Some of the Eurosceptic scaremongering mentioned within are blatant lies. And another point for Irish people to remember - we were never a truly neutral country, and Lisbon does nothing to change this either way. Our constitution is water-tight and any major decisions regarding the interests of Ireland in the foreign arena will ultimately come down to the democratic will of its people.

ei.sdraob

from the linked article

and we no longer think, 'sure, aren't we the greatest little country in the world, and couldn't we give a few economic lessons to the Swiss'."

unfortunately some posters on this forum do think Ireland is comparable to likes of Norway or even Switzerland

:eek:

Kalashnikov_Kid

Also, I think 'yes men' here refers to as much as a yes to high property values, low taxation, 100% mortgages etc. as a yes to Lisbon, before someone accuses me of contradicting myself

roosh

So basically, the EU has paid us enough for our Yes vote?

What will voting Yes do for Irish, and indeed European economic recovery? Absolutely nothing, there is no direct benefit to economic recovery by voting Yes. Businesses telling us to vote Yes does not mean that they will create jobs if we do. They will still be motivated by profit, which at this time means reducing costs.

What EU protections will we lose by voting No? Absolutely none, we will still be part of the open market, we will still offer the same low corporation tax to businesses, we still have the exact same to offer.

Lisbon has absolutely nothing to do with Economic recovery.

If we are going to look at the track record of the EU, lets look at it in relation to factors that are actaully pertinent. For example, how have the EU sought to ratify this treaty? Through openess and transparency? With reasoned debate and presentation of the facts? No, it has been by not giving the people of Europe the right to vote on it. Some people believe that because they weren't legally required to, is justification for not giving the people of Europe a say. Remember that the only reason any country in Europe is being given the opportunity to have a say is because of the Irish constitution.

There was a decision taken in Europe, not to accept the Irish No vote the last time. For no real reason, just that it wasn't "the right one". Is this the kind of politics and governeance that we are going to accept from Europe? That next time we decide something is not in our best interests, they just won't accept it and will try to find some way of ploughing on anyway?


Lisbon is about shifting further power to politicians in Europe. Why do they want this? Is it in our best interests? Surely if it was in the best interests of the people of Europe they would have been allowed to vote on it?

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

So basically, the EU has paid us enough for our Yes vote?

What will voting Yes do for Irish, and indeed European economic recovery? Absolutely nothing, there is no direct benefit to economic recovery by voting Yes. Businesses telling us to vote Yes does not mean that they will create jobs if we do. They will still be motivated by profit, which at this time means reducing costs.

There's no direct benefit but there's an indirect one. Do you really not see any connection between businesses making more profits and them creating more jobs?

sceptre

mangaroosh wrote: »

Surely if it was in the best interests of the people of Europe they would have been allowed to vote on it?

<sigh>
When even a neutral like me has a problem with your conclusion (for the second time today no less) you know there's something wrong.

If the EU decided that each country would have a referendum, they would be interfering in the internal decisions of those countries.

They didn't, so they weren't. This is actually lose-lose by your logic - the EU don't interfere so democracy is hurt but obviously if they do then they're interfering locally which by definition hurts national sovereignty.

So hence the best suggestion I have, even though you're off-topic again, which with my moderator hat on is a bit rude, is to take it up with the individual governments. it's the same thing I said to that Polish chap who posted here wanting us all to vote on his behalf rather than our own and to the Swedish chap who posted here wanting us all to vote on his behalf rather than our own and to the German chap who posted here wanting us all to vote on his behalf rather than our own. When democracy is extended to these other countries I will welcome it but that's a matter for the Poles, Swedes and Germans. Obviously I have an opinion on the way they run their countries but I don't have an opinion on how they vote, nor should they on mine.

Extending that, I'd rather see them with a public vote on it and while I'd personally be quite happy for the EU to poke its nose in on this one and decide that they must have a public vote on it, as a former law student I fully recognise that the EU can't step over the limits of the sovereignty of its member countries on this one. Hence, the only recourse is to take it up with the governments of the other 26 member states. Though I would suggest that you would have a stronger case if you first became a citizen of one of those 26 countries as otherwise, you may have an interest but you've no locus standi.

There was a decision taken in Europe, not to accept the Irish No vote the last time.

Well, actually, there was arguably a decision taken that the Irish might like to run it again but there definitely wasn't a decision taken not to accept the no vote as the Lisbon treaty currently isn't in force. Actually we've got a vote next Friday about that, which tends to expose your sentence above as being completely incorrect by definition.

Lisbon is about shifting further power to politicians in Europe.

Not if you actually read it. Actually, a chunk of it is about shifting power from unelected politicians in Europe to elected politicians in Europe. I can't remember whether you said you read the Treaty or not but if you did, I suggest reading it again.



Some of you guys are making it exceedingly hard for a fence-sitter like me to refrain from pointing and laughing. Secretly I'm already laughing at some of it but it's hard not to point more.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There's no direct benefit but there's an indirect one. Do you really not see any connection between businesses making more profits and them creating more jobs?

Are you in business? I hope you are not becuase companies making profits has no direct or even indirect correlation to creating jobs in a specific country. Companies actually cut jobs in this country to maximise profit, so there is actually an inverse relationship between jobs and profit. The reason being that Jobs = wages = cost which actually lowers profit. In the current economic climate, companies are going to continue to try to and reduce costs. The Lisbon Treaty will have absolutely no effect on this whatsoever.

What has a direct impact on profit is costs, and there are more attractive cost bases in Europe, when it comes to the likes of wages. Also, the guarantees that we received with regard to our corporation tax do not come into effect until a new treaty is ratified. There may not be a new treaty for quite some time becaues of the powers Lisbon would grant. Meanwhile, the EU is free to plough on with its more favourable aim of tax harmonisation.

Don't forget that while company here says the Lisbon will be a positive thing, they don't necessarily mean for their Irish subsidiary, they mean for the company as a whole. What is good for a company as a whole? More jobs? Increasd wages? No, it is profit. Intel stand to benefit greatly from the increase in militarisation, but that means that the company could potentially stand to benefit from a lucrative contract. They are under no obligation whatsoever to keep those jobs in Ireland, and indeed as has been the trend of technology companies, a relocation to a more profitable cost base would be their priority! Not jobs for the people of Europe.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Are you in business?

I am in business

and the last year was terrible, we dont need more uncertainty

voting NO to Lisbon would be yet another nail in the coffin of remaining business in this country

when 99% of the businesses in Ireland advocate a YES vote while Communists, Religious Fundamentalists and Fascists call for NO one has to wonder


/

roosh

sceptre wrote: »

<sigh>
When even a neutral like me has a problem with your conclusion (for the second time today no less) you know there's something wrong.

If the EU decided that each country would have a referendum, they would be interfering in the internal decisions of those countries.

They didn't, so they weren't. This is actually lose-lose by your logic - the EU don't interfere so democracy is hurt but obviously if they do then they're interfering locally which by definition hurts national sovereignty.

You do realise that the national governments of each country play a pretty big part in the running of the EU don't you, and indeed do most of the politicians, so you'll forgive me for the blurring of the lines.

They may be separate legal entities, but the people running it, or indeed playing a major part in running it are the same, so the disconnect isn't as big as you would think. As a law student, it is understandable that you would look at the legal entities as opposed to the practicality of it.

sceptre wrote: »

So hence the best suggestion I have, even though you're off-topic again, which with my moderator hat on is a bit rude, is to take it up with the individual governments.

Interesting that it is you that accuses me of going off topic, when it is your good self that chose to take one sentence from what I said in isolation - arguably the least concrete of all - and take the conversation in that direction.

sceptre wrote: »

it's the same thing I said to that Polish chap who posted here wanting us all to vote on his behalf rather than our own and to the Swedish chap who posted here wanting us all to vote on his behalf rather than our own and to the German chap who posted here wanting us all to vote on his behalf rather than our own. When democracy is extended to these other countries I will welcome it but that's a matter for the Poles, Swedes and Germans. Obviously I have an opinion on the way they run their countries but I don't have an opinion on how they vote, nor should they on mine.

Again, a missing of the point. This directly impacts on them, they did not get a say on it. I am irish, I am actually pro-european for the best part, but I have chosen to look at the wider ramifications of this referendum, and the impact of a Yes or No vote. This is a political matter, and politics is never, ever about a simple yes or no, there are implications.

Are you familiar with the process that has been followed in order to attempt to ratify this treaty? Are you aware of the only reason that this has not been bulldozed through already without giving anyone a say, other than a country that happens to be a fly in the ointment because it is written into their constitution that they must have a say? Take off your legal cap for a second, and don't just look at whether the process was lawful or not, because we all know Laws can be circumnavigates and that loopholes exist. Take off all your hats and just be you a person, a citzen of Ireland and Europe. If the shoe was on the other foot, and some other country were given the opportunity to vote on something that affected you, but you had been denied that opportunity by your government, what would you think?

The manner in which the politicians of Europe have sought to ratify this treaty stinks, and if we vote Yes, we give them a green light to continue unopposed in the future. If we vote No, we retain a voice.

sceptre wrote: »

Extending that, I'd rather see them with a public vote on it and while I'd personally be quite happy for the EU to poke its nose in on this one and decide that they must have a public vote on it, as a former law student I fully recognise that the EU can't step over the limits of the sovereignty of its member countries on this one. Hence, the only recourse is to take it up with the governments of the other 26 member states. Though I would suggest that you would have a stronger case if you first became a citizen of one of those 26 countries as otherwise, you may have an interest but you've no locus standi.

As a former law student, can you also recognise that it is the political parties of these countries that play a major role in the running of the EU, and that practically speaking it is these people, not some inanimate legal entity that makes the decisions, and it is they that have chosen not to give their people the decision.

sceptre wrote: »

Well, actually, there was arguably a decision taken that the Irish might like to run it again but there definitely wasn't a decision taken not to accept the no vote as the Lisbon treaty currently isn't in force. Actually we've got a vote next Friday about that, which tends to expose your sentence above as being completely incorrect by definition.

That wasn't the decision taken, the decision was based on Amendment 32, the decision to recognise the result of Ireland's referendum, the answer was a resounding No!

sceptre wrote: »

Not if you actually read it. Actually, a chunk of it is about shifting power from unelected politicians in Europe to elected politicians in Europe. I can't remember whether you said you read the Treaty or not but if you did, I suggest reading it again.

As a former law student you may perhaps be better equipped to read it than I. I unfortunately am at the behest of those dissemenating the information to make it legible and understandable to me. What I have seen from these people is empty rhetoric playing on peoples fears about economic recovery. That leaves me with serious serious doubt. If I have any doubt whatsoever, about anything in the Treaty then voting No is the only rational decision. The issue of increased militarisation is one that particularly rankles, and not because of Irish neutrality, but because it opens us more to attacks.

sceptre wrote: »

Some of you guys are making it exceedingly hard for a fence-sitter like me to refrain from pointing and laughing. Secretly I'm already laughing at some of it but it's hard not to point more.

Laugh and point all you want, but make sure that when you cast your vote, you have considered everything that you vote will mean. It isn't a simple yes or no to the Lisbon Treaty, it is a decision about what is and what isn't a acceptible politics here and in Europe. If you think that all the major political parties in this country should resort to empty rhetoric and play on peoples fear of economic recovery in order to get them to do what they want, then a Yes vote will send that message. If you are happy for the EU to try and sneak through important legislation without you having a real say, a No will send the same message

w00t

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

If you want a very good empirical perspective of the Irish economy over the last 15 years in relation to Europe, you should read this article (and ignore some of the predictable charicatures).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1793511.html

As a proud Irishman living abroad for the last year, it certainly put things in perspective from me - a no-holds-barred objective account of the present state of the Irish economy in relation to the EU.

In short, Ireland is ****ed and we'd be commiting economic suicide if we voted No again. And we won't sacrifice anything in return IMO. Some of the Eurosceptic scaremongering mentioned within are blatant lies. And another point for Irish people to remember - we were never a truly neutral country, and Lisbon does nothing to change this either way. Our constitution is water-tight and any major decisions regarding the interests of Ireland in the foreign arena will ultimately come down to the democratic will of its people.

Your in short is missleading. In short, Ireland is ****ed and we'd be commiting economic suicide if we voted No again.

Where does it say voting no is economic suicide?

I just read an article that had a few points of view. No Voters going Yes. No Voters staying at No. Doom Gloom due to the housing market.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

from the linked article

and we no longer think, 'sure, aren't we the greatest little country in the world, and couldn't we give a few economic lessons to the Swiss'."
unfortunately some posters on this forum do think Ireland is comparable to likes of Norway or even Switzerland

:eek:

Some do

From the same article.

" "Ireland is still a great little country with a lot of things going for it," she says.

ei.sdraob

w00t wrote: »

Some do

From the same article.

" "Ireland is still a great little country with a lot of things going for it," she says.

only thing going for Ireland is more debt and unemployment

/

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I am in business

and the last year was terrible, we dont need more uncertainty

voting NO to Lisbon would be yet another nail in the coffin of remaining business in this country

when 99% of the businesses in Ireland advocate a YES vote while Communists, Religious Fundamentalists and Fascists call for NO one has to wonder


/

We were in the EU last year during this downturn, Lisbon won't impact on that. Voting no to Lisbon will not be any nail in anyones coffin, becuase it does absolutely nothing to the economic landscape.

I understand it is a frightening time, and it may be comforting to think that we are doing something about our economic state by voting Yes, but that is a complete and utter fallacy.

I admit, it is pretty ironic when communists are calling for a halt to the centralisation of power to a less democratically elected regime, that decides what is good and bad for everyone.


If you are going to vote Yes to Lisbon, I completely respect that, but please don't fall for the bull*** that is being peddled by the self-interested politicians, the heads of business that stand to curry favour with the political mainstream by encouraging a Yes.

If you agree with the manner in which the governments of Europe have gone about ratifying this treaty, by not giving the rest of Europe the chance to vote, then vote Yes. If you agree that it is right that we should be asked to vote again, when the guarantees that have been secured for us will not come into effect until the next new treaty (whenever that will be), then vote Yes.

I'm not sure what business you are in, but does the outcome of the Laval case not make you ask a few questions about what the EUs priorities and protections for indigenous businesses?

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

We were in the EU last year during this downturn, Lisbon won't impact on that. Voting no to Lisbon will not be any nail in anyones coffin, becuase it does absolutely nothing to the economic landscape.

91% of independent economists disagree with you and present facts and figures as well


Assessment of the
Impact of The Lisbon Treaty
on the Irish Economy

A Survey of
The Views of Leading
Independent Economists
in Ireland

Introduction
This report represents an independent analysis of the economic impacts of
Ireland’s forthcoming decision in relation to the Lisbon Treaty. Specifically,
it represents the views of leading independent, non-government academic
and research economists in Ireland on the economic implications of Ireland’s
vote on the Lisbon Treaty. It is important to note that the main
counterfactuals relate to the likely impacts arising from an acceptance or
rejection by Ireland of the Lisbon Treaty. This may differ from the impact of
a position whereby the Lisbon Treaty was never proposed. As a result, some
economists believe that a ‘Yes’ vote might not dramatically improve the
prospects for the Irish economy but as one Irish economist suggested to the
survey, “a No vote would have very negative consequences compared to the
status quo”. It is also important to note that the views expressed in this
document and in the survey are confined only to economic issues and do not
deal with any issues which may or may not arise in other areas such as
security, defence, human rights or other issues.
What Economists were Surveyed
The survey results represent the opinions of 66 leading economists who are
engaged in research or academic work in nine of the main centres of
independent economic analysis in Ireland. Specifically, economists in the
economics departments of the following organisations were surveyed:
Trinity College, University of Dublin
University College Dublin
The Economic and Social Research Institute
Indecon Economic Consultants
National University of Ireland, Galway
Economists Not Included in the Survey
Economists working in the media or in banks or other financial institutions
were not included. Economists working in government departments or
agencies or in employer or trade union organisations were also not included
in the survey. While many excellent economists work in these organisations,
it was felt useful on this occasion to outline the views of independent nongovernment
research and academic economists.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

I'm not sure what business you are in, but does the outcome of the Laval case not make you ask a few questions about what the EUs priorities and protections for indigenous businesses?

The Posting of Workers Directive makes it very clear that if a national minimum wage is set out in national legislation, workers posted to that country from another member state must be paid that minimum wage. As such, the Vote No posters claiming that Lisbon will lead to a minimum wage of €1.84 are completely untrue. In Laval and Ruffert, the national legislation (in Sweden and Germany respectively) did not clearly set out the minimum wage. As a result, the countries lost these cases. Action is already being taken in Sweden to change the law to ensure this situation doesn’t arise again.

http://www.generationyes.ie/2009/09/11/guest-blog-5-lisbon-treaty-and-workers-rights-by-roderic-ogorman/

http://www.womenforeurope.ie/index.php/news/106-the-minimum-wage-and-workers-rights



Sweden doesnt have a minimum wage Ireland does

the Laval case has been dealt with on this forum over and over


btw if I wanted to outsource work I would have done so already, to India or elsewhere cheaper by now, for that matter we could lift the whole business and follow Dell

my current business only requires a broadband connection and electricity and bright people (who seem to be in short supply lately with graduates thinking they are entitled to a job simply because they are irish and passed an exam or two)

we already outsourced equipment to continent and US since electricity and datacenter/network infrastructure is few orders of magnitude cheaper and better than Ireland


/

sceptre

mangaroosh wrote: »

You do realise that the national governments of each country play a pretty big part in the running of the EU don't you, and indeed do most of the politicians, so you'll forgive me for the blurring of the lines.

Actually, no I don't and won't. Not on this one. The EU doesn't have competency in this area and if you don't get that then you're failing to understand one of the basic principles of sovereignty within the EU.

They may be separate legal entities, but the people running it, or indeed playing a major part in running it are the same, so the disconnect isn't as big as you would think. As a law student, it is understandable that you would look at the legal entities as opposed to the practicality of it.

See above. If the EU make a vote compulsory they're overstepping their bounds. They can't legally do this. If they did, then Declan Ganley's shower of nuts would be right in one of their complaints.

Interesting that it is you that accuses me of going off topic, when it is your good self that chose to take one sentence from what I said in isolation - arguably the least concrete of all - and take the conversation in that direction.

I take my role of anti-idiocy quite seriously at times and extend it to my posting. That's not meant to be condescending but everyone else here is pimping a view. I'm probably the last neutral (note: I didn't say undecided) person left here so someone has to do it.

Again, a missing of the point. This directly impacts on them, they did not get a say on it. I am irish, I am actually pro-european for the best part, but I have chosen to look at the wider ramifications of this referendum, and the impact of a Yes or No vote. This is a political matter, and politics is never, ever about a simple yes or no, there are implications.

They elected their national governments, they approved their own constitutions just as we did. They've got the right to change theirs, we don't. I'm not missing the point at all. You're blatantly ignoring it. I don't give a crap what some guy in Latvia reckons my vote should be. it's none of his business. But he can change his own country's constitution to give him a vote in it, that's his.

Are you familiar with the process that has been followed in order to attempt to ratify this treaty?

Apparently I'm one of the few who is.

Are you aware of the only reason that this has not been bulldozed through already without giving anyone a say, other than a country that happens to be a fly in the ointment because it is written into their constitution that they must have a say?

Bulldozed my ass. Seriously. It got approved by national governments, elected democratically by the people in those countries. Like any matter affecting a people to that extent, if they don't want it they get to vote someone else in. Most of the other EU countries have large enough anti-EU parties that the "everyone's on the Treaty side" argument that's pushed here wouldn't wash. Look up the party standings in Denmark for a start, then run around some of the others. They're not in the majority but in many countries they're large enough that people could even have done it in a purely representative capacity, outside the possibility of a direct vote.

Take off your legal cap for a second, and don't just look at whether the process was lawful or not, because we all know Laws can be circumnavigates and that loopholes exist. Take off all your hats and just be you a person, a citzen of Ireland and Europe. If the shoe was on the other foot, and some other country were given the opportunity to vote on something that affected you, but you had been denied that opportunity by your government, what would you think?

If I lived in one of those other countries? if it was any country other than the UK (for particular constitutional reasons) we'd be having a vote there as I'd have organised my fellow citizens to have a vote on any matter affecting national sovereignty. But then I don't phone up Fritz in Berlin and ask him to vote on my behalf.

The manner in which the politicians of Europe have sought to ratify this treaty stinks, and if we vote Yes, we give them a green light to continue unopposed in the future. If we vote No, we retain a voice.

As I've said before, I'm only concerned about the contents of the Treaty and regarding it as a vote of approval or non-approval on a question we're not being asked is idiotic. I'm not an idiot. I've got a bigass paragraph about this almost at the end of this post.

As a former law student, can you also recognise that it is the political parties of these countries that play a major role in the running of the EU, and that practically speaking it is these people, not some inanimate legal entity that makes the decisions, and it is they that have chosen not to give their people the decision.

I don't have to be a former law student to understand that the EU has a separate persona. And yes, it's my point that the countries have chosen not to give their people the decision. Not the EU. Actually that's been my point from the start. Those countries are run by governments elected by people in those countries. It's those people that elect those with the power and it's those people that elect those who choose to give them the power or not. Not a collection of 26 inanimate governmental entities that make the decisions. Those people for some reason have repeatedly not regarded it as a problem. Some of those countries are older than this one and they've had over a hundred years in some cases to elect governments that have to refer to the people before surrendering sovereignty in any small regard. They've had anything up to 52 years since first joining the EEC originally to do so. they've never bothered. That's slack to say the least.

That wasn't the decision taken, the decision was based on Amendment 32, the decision to recognise the result of Ireland's referendum, the answer was a resounding No!

Exclamation marks don't make it so. The fact is that the Lisbon treaty isn't currently in force. We could argue over semantics but that would just waste time. Constitutionally the government is allowed to run this again. Also, I've no idea what you mean by Amendment 32 so if you could reference that, it'd be really cool.

As a former law student you may perhaps be better equipped to read it than I.

My ability to read it has nothing to do with my law schooling. I outscored the rest of my class in EU law but that's by the by. I may be able to understand it faster but anyone can understand it if they give it a bit of time.

I unfortunately am at the behest of those dissemenating the information to make it legible and understandable to me. What I have seen from these people is empty rhetoric playing on peoples fears about economic recovery.

The referendum commission haven't said anything about economic recovery as far as I can see. Apart from those guys, for the most part you're faced with pro-treaty people on one side and anti-Treaty people on the other side. But I've seen a lot of tomfoolery from both sides and some great sense of gob****edness from a few people involved. Having said that, I've also seen some superb analysis on these forums. Also some gob****edness. but that's typically easy to spot.

That leaves me with serious serious doubt. If I have any doubt whatsoever, about anything in the Treaty then voting No is the only rational decision. The issue of increased militarisation is one that particularly rankles, and not because of Irish neutrality, but because it opens us more to attacks.

Well, I'm not attempting to convince you to vote in a particular direction so I don't really care about that. I'd point out that a real neutral country could do with more than five ships and... am I right in thinking we've got two tanks? Either way, actual neutrality needs some extra military spending, even though I'd rather we didn't have to. But make up your mind on your own basis at your whim. I actually don't care which way anyone votes, I'm just picky about information that misleads, unintentionally or not.

Laugh and point all you want, but make sure that when you cast your vote, you have considered everything that you vote will mean. It isn't a simple yes or no to the Lisbon Treaty, it is a decision about what is and what isn't a acceptible politics here and in Europe. If you think that all the major political parties in this country should resort to empty rhetoric and play on peoples fear of economic recovery in order to get them to do what they want, then a Yes vote will send that message. If you are happy for the EU to try and sneak through important legislation without you having a real say, a No will send the same message

I've read the Treaty. And understood all of it. Guarantees too. Mentally cross-referenced with Nice and Maastricht for good measure. With all that reading done, I'm damned if I'm going to make my decision on something as vacuous as whether a few political parties should have knocked out even more information.

Don't worry, when the general election rolls around, the big question in my head will be which shower of incompetents and less incompetents I want representing me and running the country. But I wouldn't want my answer next Friday, whether or not I agree with the constitutional amendment to allow the Lisbon treaty to be ratified by Ireland, to be misinterpreted and misconstrued as an answer to a question I wasn't asked. Confusion like that definitely isn't the kind of society in which I'd like to live, here in Limerick or in Ireland and definitely not the kind of confusing Europe I'd hope to see in the future. Hence I'll be answering the question I'm being asked. Life's much simpler that way.

I can see where you're coming from in part (I think) - frustration at feeling ignored by elected and non-elected representatives canb be extremely annoying. Feeling that they're trying to slide something past you is even worse. I live in Limerick - some of the city councillors can be professionals in both of these regards (and I spent a year as a full time students' union officer too, so I know all about disenfranchised electorates who don't engage). But refusal to engage isn't something in which I'm willing to participate. You're obviously articulate and there are plenty of opportunities for articulate people to voice their disapproval of anything and everything. For you, your vote is far too important to waste on the mere treaty, for me my vote is far too important to waste on anything else. From my perspective of course you're totally wrong but I'm sure it works the other way too. But I don't answer questions on ballot papers that weren't on the ballot paper. And after the count is done, all that matters is whether people approved resolution X or refused it. Resolution X, in this case the Lisbon Treaty, is the only question in town. All the other questions either belong to another vote or the letters page in the Times the week before. I'm too lazy to write letters as a rule, the papers don't tend to pay a few pennies per word for them like they do for everything else. I can manage an X in the top or bottom box on a ballot paper though.

Jungle Bunny

ei.sdraob wrote: »

only thing going for Ireland is more debt and unemployment

/

Regarless of our vote, I have no doubt you agree.

ei.sdraob

Jungle Bunny wrote: »

Regarless of our vote, I have no doubt you agree.

voting NO would only worsen the dire situation

91% of independent economists agree with me

/