90.8% of independent economists feel that a YES is good for economy and FDI

ei.sdraob

http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/aw_lisbon_sept.pdf


The above provides and excellent report with graphs and figures and thesis of the outcomes for Lisbon with regards to economy (a hot subject now) from a group of independent Irish economists


what do our resident NO "economists" have to say now? please do back your opinions with references (something thats seriously lacking in no campaign)


i created this thread so it can be referenced anytime one of the NOs claims a NO wont harm the economy and/or will lead to status quo economically


:pac:

rcecil

So increasing corporate control is a good idea? Why has the US middle class been shrinking since the advent of Milton Friedman and the neocon conspiracy. Corporate control lowers the living standards for the majority, undermines workers rights and destroys democracy. Michael O'Leary and the other privatizers think Lisbon II is a great idea. I dont.

Scofflaw

rcecil wrote: »

So increasing corporate control is a good idea? Why has the US middle class been shrinking since the advent of Milton Friedman and the neocon conspiracy. Corporate control lowers the living standards for the majority, undermines workers rights and destroys democracy. Michael O'Leary and the other privatizers think Lisbon II is a great idea. I dont.

And ETUC and the bulk of the unions think it's a good idea too. In fact, pretty much everyone not on the far left, far right, or the far out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

rcecil wrote: »

So increasing corporate control is a good idea? Why has the US middle class been shrinking since the advent of Milton Friedman and the neocon conspiracy. Corporate control lowers the living standards for the majority, undermines workers rights and destroys democracy. Michael O'Leary and the other privatizers think Lisbon II is a great idea. I dont.

[where are your facts and figures?]

do remember that businesses employ a large section of our society before spitting your communist ideology, we cant all have a cushy well paid job on public sector now can we?


/

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, pretty much everyone not on the far left, far right, or the far out.

Brilliant

Sam Vimes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

edit: you removed post i replied to

/

I did. I was trying to avoid the whole "yes side are arrogant and dismissive" thing that this thread will inevitably descend into if I left it there. Doesn't matter that it's true

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did. I was trying to avoid the whole "yes side are arrogant and dismissive" thing that this thread will inevitably descend into if I left it there. Doesn't matter that it's true

i removed mine too

its a sad day when one cant speak his mind

out of fear of being taken out of context by deliberate nitpicking and warping

/

Martin 2

In addition to Economists another recent survey has shown that the vast majority of Irish based multinational CEO’s believe a yes vote will have a positive impact on their business, link :

“The majority of CEOs in US companies believe jobs and investment will be lost if Ireland rejects the Lisbon Treaty, according to a new survey.
“The survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, which took the views of 100 CEOs of US multinational companies operating in the country, showed that 91pc believe a Yes vote will have a positive impact on their business.”
“Some 95pc of respondents believe our international reputation will be damaged if we vote No and that could have far-reaching consequences.”
“For many of our members companies, a crucial part of their strategy and reason for being here is that Ireland is a part of Europe. Not only that, but Ireland is seen to have influence and power within Europe. If there is any doubt about our commitment to Europe or our influence within the EU, it could cause future investment to be lost to Ireland,”

At this stage can anyone doubt that the weight of evidence is that a No is more likely to damage our economy and yes more likely to help it

alrightcuz

money,money,money is that all you small minded people think of ? can ye name just one reason why you should vote yes to lisbon that doesn't involve money,,,,,,

Scofflaw

alrightcuz wrote: »

money,money,money is that all you small minded people think of ? can ye name just one reason why you should vote yes to lisbon that doesn't involve money,,,,,,

Democracy, transparency, legally enforceable rights, better subsidiarity arrangements, greater control over our own government in Europe - admittedly, that's five, but still.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

alrightcuz wrote: »

money,money,money is that all you small minded people think of ? can ye name just one reason why you should vote yes to lisbon that doesn't involve money,,,,,,

Here's ten:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086

this thread is a response to the people that say that a yes vote will have no effect on the economy. Economists disagree

marco_polo

alrightcuz wrote: »

money,money,money is that all you small minded people think of ? can ye name just one reason why you should vote yes to lisbon that doesn't involve money,,,,,,

LOL. Pretty much your only posts here have been about the 200Bn? 400Bn? 600Bn? (How much this week actually?) fisheries lie, so it seems you are quite obsessed with d'economy yourself.

Here is one vote yes and you won't be forced to take the swine flu shot (As that seems to be your other primary concern)

getz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Democracy, transparency, legally enforceable rights, better subsidiarity arrangements, greater control over our own government in Europe - admittedly, that's five, but still.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hit the nail on the head,,,loss of national sovereignty to a body free from any democratic responsibility[namely the commision] the parliament is powerless, and even under the treaty of lisbon, it will remain so, any goverment should be responsible to its electors,but big business love the idea that they will be able to do what they in any country by giving freebees to some of the more corrupt commision members,there is already hints its started.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/aw_lisbon_sept.pdf


The above provides and excellent report with graphs and figures of the outcomes for Lisbon with regards to economy (a hot subject now) from a group of independent Irish economists


what do our resident NO "economists" have to say now? please do back your opinions with references (something thats seriously lacking in no campaign)


i created this thread so it can be referenced anytime one of the NOs claims a NO wont harm the economy and/or will lead to status quo economically


:pac:

What is an Independent Irish economist?

Not one from Indecon consulting anyway, who only do reports they are paid to do.

90.8% . Rubbish. Anyone with an MA in economics is an 'economist'.

Total misinformation.

marco_polo

getz wrote: »

hit the nail on the head,,,loss of national sovereignty to a body free from any democratic responsibility[namely the commision] the parliament is powerless, and even under the treaty of lisbon, it will remain so, any goverment should be responsible to its electors,but big business love the idea that they will be able to do what they in any country by giving freebees to some of the more corrupt commision members,there is already hints its started.

So the the ability to sack/reject the entire commission en bloc is powerlessness by your defination.

In what way is the role of the commission changing under Lisbon? Also I don't suppose you actually have any evidence to back up your corruption allegations against the outgoing commission?

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

What is an Independent Irish economist?

Not one from Indecon consulting anyway, who only do reports they are paid to do.

90.8% . Rubbish. Anyone with an MA in economics is an 'economist'.

Total misinformation.

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.

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Many of the economists here do consulting work for...banks.

Indecon is not independent.

This does not mean 90.8% of all economists.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Many of the economists here do consulting work for...banks.

Indecon is not independent.

This does not mean 90.8% of all economists.

No they did not ask 90.8% of all economists, they did a survey. Good luck trying to find an economist that is in no way connected to a bank. The fact remains that the experts in the economy mostly agree that a yes vote will help the economy and the people who want a no vote for other reasons and so have a vested interest in playing down any effect it will have on the economy are trying to play this down, or in this case, imply that they're lying about it for some reason that I can't quite fathom because I don't see what they have to gain from pretending that a yes vote will help the economy.

I'm going with the experts anyway

getz

marco_polo wrote: »

So the the ability to sack/reject the entire commission en bloc is powerlessness by your defination.

In what way is the role of the commission changing under Lisbon? Also I don't suppose you actually have any evidence to back up your corruption allegations against the outgoing commission?

do i have evidence ? no i dont,but i know the EUs own fraud office has, paul van bruitenen who was the whistleblower who brought down the EU commision in 1999,is in charged of the EU anti fraud office[OLAF] has investigated the EU commision for regional policy ,and has confirmed through investigation that corruption has taken place over a number of years. also on november 19th the EU commision president josa manual barroso shamefully threatend the UK independance partys nigel farage with legal consequences for daring to reveal the shady past of EU commisions vice president jacques barrot[barrot recieved a suspended prision sentencefor his role in a political fund raising scandal in france]are these the kind of people who you want to have in control of your destiny ?

Sam Vimes

getz wrote: »

do i have evidence ? no i dont,but i know the EUs own fraud office has, paul van bruitenen who was the whistleblower who brought down the EU commision in 1999,is in charged of the EU anti fraud office[OLAF] has investigated the EU commision for regional policy ,and has confirmed through investigation that corruption has taken place over a number of years. also on november 19th the EU commision president josa manual barroso shamefully threatend the UK independance partys nigel farage with legal consequences for daring to reveal the shady past of EU commisions vice president jacques barrot[barrot recieved a suspended prision sentencefor his role in a political fund raising scandal in france]are these the kind of people who you want to have in control of your destiny ?

Assuming for a moment the above is true, surely that should make you vote yes to Lisbon because it takes more power away from the commission and gives it to the directly elected parliament?

marco_polo

getz wrote: »

do i have evidence ? no i dont,but i know the EUs own fraud office has, paul van bruitenen who was the whistleblower who brought down the EU commision in 1999,is in charged of the EU anti fraud office[OLAF] has investigated the EU commision for regional policy ,and has confirmed through investigation that corruption has taken place over a number of years. also on november 19th the EU commision president josa manual barroso shamefully threatend the UK independance partys nigel farage with legal consequences for daring to reveal the shady past of EU commisions vice president jacques barrot[barrot recieved a suspended prision sentencefor his role in a political fund raising scandal in france]are these the kind of people who you want to have in control of your destiny ?

Though you might bring this one up, bearing in mind your previous post could you tell me what toothless EU institution brought down the commission in question?

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The above provides and excellent report with graphs and figures of the outcomes for Lisbon with regards to economy (a hot subject now) from a group of independent Irish economists

Can you quote us some please?

getz

marco_polo wrote: »

Though you might bring this one up, bearing in mind your previous post could you tell me what toothless EU institution brought down the commission in question?

it was dutch MEP paul van bruitenen who at that time was the former assistant auditor of the financial control directrate,so the answer to your question was that it was the financial control directrate .

getz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Assuming for a moment the above is true, surely that should make you vote yes to Lisbon because it takes more power away from the commission and gives it to the directly elected parliament?

i live in the UK so i dont yet get a vote,but if i had a chance i would vote no,reasons its not a democratic institution,a richmans club who keep changing the rules to suite their agenda,

Sam Vimes

getz wrote: »

i live in the UK so i dont yet get a vote,but if i had a chance i would vote no,reasons its not a democratic institution,a richmans club who keep changing the rules to suite their agenda,

Evidence?

ei.sdraob

getz wrote: »

i live in the UK so i dont yet get a vote,but if i had a chance i would vote no,reasons its not a democratic institution,a richmans club who keep changing the rules to suite their agenda,

are you talking about a certain Declan Ganley

marco_polo

getz wrote: »

it was dutch MEP paul van bruitenen who at that time was the former assistant auditor of the financial control directrate,so the answer to your question was that it was the financial control directrate .

I though that they just uncovered the fraud?

http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-014.htm

On 17th December 1998 the Parliament once more refused the discharge and brought forward a vote of no confidence with the Commission under suspicion of withholding information on fraud and mismanagement. The parliament demanded a list of all current internal investigations into cases of corruption among European Civil Servants, as well as a guarantee that legal authorities of member states are to be informed on all suspected cases of corruption. A majority of MEPs also voted in favour of a proposal for the foundation of a European Anti-Fraud Office (Hanse-Office, 2000: 14).

The vote of no confidence proposal was backed by 71 MEPs and initially aimed at supporting the Commission rather than overthrowing it. From the beginning it was clear that a parliamentary majority would be unachievable. It was therefore agreed that after the motion had been rejected, a Committee of Independent Experts would be set up.

On 15th March 1999 the Committee submitted its first report whereupon the Commission collectively resigned. This left the Commission politically weakened and incapable of acting in most adverse circumstances: In the middle of the Kosovo-crisis, the Rambouillet peace negotiations had just failed and the NATO operation against the Republic of Yugoslavia was about to start (24th March 1999). Additionally, the Agenda 2000 negotiations were imminently drawing to a close (25th March 1999).

These events demonstrated the increased power of the European Parliament since the Single European Act 1986, which the Santer-Commission obviously underestimated. The power of the European Parliament not only increased regarding legislative procedures but also in other areas such as its involvement in the budgetary process and its influence in EU appointments (Hrbek, 2001: 21).

Martin 2

dresden8 wrote: »

Originally Posted by ei.sdraob

The above provides and excellent report with graphs and figures of the outcomes for Lisbon with regards to economy (a hot subject now) from a group of independent Irish economists

Can you quote us some please?

The survey doesn’t publish the names of the individual economists surveyed for the same reasons that we don’t use our real names when posting here, they want to preserve their anonymity. What’s more anonymity tends to evoke more truthful responses. It’s up to individuals to accept or reject the bona fides of the authors of the report.

From the Acknowledgements section:
“The main element in this research represents an analysis of a survey of leading independent nongovernment academic and research economists in Ireland”

dresden8

Martin 2 wrote: »

The survey doesn’t publish the names of the individual economists surveyed for the same reasons that we don’t use our real names when posting here, they want to preserve their anonymity. What’s more anonymity tends to evoke more truthful responses. It’s up to individuals to accept or reject the bona fides of the authors of the report.

What I wanted quoted was

graphs and figures of the outcomes for Lisbon with regards to economy

Martin 2

dresden8 wrote: »

What I wanted quoted was

Apologies, I just saw "independent Irish economists" underlined and assumed you were refering to that.

dresden8

Martin 2 wrote: »

Apologies, I just saw "independent Irish economists" underlined and assumed you were refering to that.

No probs, that was in the op.

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

No probs, that was in the op.

i just underlined what in the document

as i could foresee no side questioning their independence and integrity

/

getz

the fraud was let out of the bag[whistleblower] paul van bruitenen,what i mean by rule changing is the fact that the EU will never except a no by a member state,the dutch the french and now the irish have said no over the years,the goverments have been made to go back to their peoples, because of financial threats and bribes and a pretended change in the treaty ,i have a bulldog ,putting a tail on him will not turn him into a greyhound.

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i just underlined what in the document

as i could foresee no side questioning their independence and integrity

/

So, no

graphs and figures of the outcomes for Lisbon

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

So, no

i see

you are right i worded the OP post wrong, there are no graphs of outcomes (since thats in future it sort of hard to graph something that you cant measure yet)


but there are graphs (the linked pdf contains plenty of graphs and figures) of current economic factors such as confidence and spreads, on which the opinion and projections of the economists thesis rests

Dinner

getz wrote: »

the dutch the french and now the irish have said no over the years,the goverments have been made to go back to their peoples, because of financial threats and bribes and a pretended change in the treaty

There's no pretending about it. The EU Constitution was changed, parts were removed and added and the whole thing reformated into an amendment treaty to completly remove any perceived movements towards statehood. If that doesn't count as 'changed' then I think we're living in different universes.

Lisbon did not need to be changed, it just needed to be clarified.

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i see

you are right i worded the OP post wrong, there are no graphs of outcomes (since thats in future it sort of hard to graph something that you cant measure yet)


but there are graphs (the linked pdf contains plenty of graphs and figures) of current economic factors such as confidence and spreads, on which the opinion and projections of the economists thesis rests

Thought not.

Sam Vimes

dresden8 wrote: »

Thought not.

What's your point? By winning this battle have invalidated the contents of the report in any way and/or proved that a yes vote will have no effect on the economy?

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point? By winning this battle have invalidated the contents of the report in any way and/or proved that a yes vote will have no effect on the economy?

i edited the wording to be "more correct" so as per feedback

tho that doesnt change the thesis presented by these economists

a yes vote more than likely would be better for economy

I feel like one of the Climate Change scientists who despite an overwhelming body of evidence have to quibble over the smallest of herrings

/

getz

this may sound daft, but it makes me mad,three weeks ago a new EU rule made, makes it illegal to manufacture or bring into and to sell the old type light bulbs in the EU,now [unless you have stocked up with them]you have to use the new energy efficient type, which cost over three times more , ok it sounds good,but when like me you have put in dimmer switches in the house and find that the bulbs blow after only a few days ,you realize they have not fully thought things out before passing new EU rules. its the old saying of ,how many politictians does it take to change a light bulb ?answer the lot if they have in dimmer switches

ei.sdraob

getz wrote: »

this may sound daft, but it makes me mad,three weeks ago a new EU rule made, makes it illegal to manufacture or bring into and to sell the old type light bulbs in the EU,now [unless you have stocked up with them]you have to use the new energy efficient type, which cost over three times more , ok it sounds good,but when like me you have put in dimmer switches in the house and find that the bulbs blow after only a few days ,you realize they have not fully thought things out before passing new EU rules. its the old saying of ,how many politictians does it take to change a light bulb ?answer the lot if they have in dimmer switches

what does that have to do with anything?

big whoa EU, US, Australia + NZ, and even Cuba :0 and many other countries are banning these over next few years, because they are inefficient, if you are worried about dimming then buy ones that are dimmable (lol i invented a word ?)

next you be complaining about shape of bananas I guess? why not debate the thread and facts at hand titled

"90.8% of independent economists feel that a YES is good for economy and FDI"

....

Sam Vimes

getz wrote: »

this may sound daft, but it makes me mad,three weeks ago a new EU rule made, makes it illegal to manufacture or bring into and to sell the old type light bulbs in the EU,now [unless you have stocked up with them]you have to use the new energy efficient type, which cost over three times more , ok it sounds good,but when like me you have put in dimmer switches in the house and find that the bulbs blow after only a few days ,you realize they have not fully thought things out before passing new EU rules. its the old saying of ,how many politictians does it take to change a light bulb ?answer the lot if they have in dimmer switches

You're supposed to use ones designed for dimmer switches:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm#3

And if they cost three times as much but last three times longer, what have you lost?

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're supposed to use ones designed for dimmer switches:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm#3

And if they cost three times as much but last three times longer, what have you lost?

the unelected EU elites are forcing environmentally friendly lightbulbs on people? those bastards!

ixtlan

getz wrote: »

this may sound daft, but it makes me mad,three weeks ago a new EU rule made, makes it illegal to manufacture or bring into and to sell the old type light bulbs in the EU,now [unless you have stocked up with them]you have to use the new energy efficient type, which cost over three times more , ok it sounds good,but when like me you have put in dimmer switches in the house and find that the bulbs blow after only a few days ,you realize they have not fully thought things out before passing new EU rules. its the old saying of ,how many politictians does it take to change a light bulb ?answer the lot if they have in dimmer switches

Do you realise that it was the Irish government that was pushing this new rule? That we were waiting for the EU to catch up to what we wanted?

If you wanted to make a coherent argument against the EU, it would have to be that the EU delayed our ban...

Ix.

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i edited the wording to be "more correct" so as per feedback

tho that doesnt change the thesis presented by these economists

a yes vote more than likely would be better for economy

I feel like one of the Climate Change scientists who despite an overwhelming body of evidence have to quibble over the smallest of herrings

/

Hey, you got off lightly with me.

If you were a No side poster who made the same mistake the usual Yes side mob would have been on your case straight away about no side lies.

Sam Vimes

dresden8 wrote: »

Hey, you got off lightly with me.

If you were a No side poster who made the same mistake the usual Yes side mob would have been on your case straight away about no side lies.

He made a small error in his post which didn't change the validity of his statement

You pointed out this small error

He edited his post to reflect this

Part 3 is where these no side posters you refer to fall down. They refuse to admit it when it has clearly been pointed out that they are in error

defence forces

was the .2% a dwarf

Toiletroll

These are the same stupid economists that retained that the boom is getting boomier spin.

NOT to be TRUSTED... Its been shown that only a few economists actually know the difference between reality and crazy speculation.

Id say the wise economists fall into the 10% who disagree that Lisbon will be good. Lisbon will either have no effect on the economy or very little.

ei.sdraob

defence forces wrote: »

was the .2% a dwarf

your back ?

hows your potatoes coming along?

Sam Vimes

Toiletroll wrote: »

NOT to be TRUSTED... Its been shown that only a few economists actually know the difference between reality and crazy speculation.

Yes indeed, instead of trusting economists we should trust the communists, the fascists, the terrorists, the UKIP, the religious fundamentalists and the guy with all the US military contracts. They have our best interests at heart right?

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed, instead of trusting economists we should trust the communists, the fascists, the terrorists, the UKIP, the religious fundamentalists and the guy with all the US military contracts. They have our best interests at heart right?

"head bangers" is too strong a word i believe