"We voted Yes to Lisbon, now where are the jobs Fianna Fail?"

Wolfe Tone

Who are the EU to decide if governments are irresponsible? Personally if we vote in idiots then they should be in charge, irresponsible or not as we have voted for them. Thats democracy.

dvpower

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Who are the EU to decide if governments are irresponsible? Personally if we vote in idiots then they should be in charge, irresponsible or not as we have voted for them. Thats democracy.

When we signed up to the stability and growth pact (and the EU in general) we delegated part of our sovereignty. That was a democratic decision that we now need to respect.

We can't just sign up to agreements and then ignore them.

BluntGuy

This discussion is kinda pointless. In the current case where we voted "yes" and some jobs happen to be created some people will claim it's because of Lisbon Treaty and being "co-operative" with Europe and at the "heart" and blah blah blah.

If we voted "no" and some jobs happened to be lost, some people would claim "if we'd voted yes" it wouldn't have happened and we've been "marginalised" and blah blah blah.

A lot of fallacies being thrown around, such as this one:
　

astrofool wrote:

The EU is funding €500m for Metro North, which will pay for a lot of salaries.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon. It was being discussed before then. The EIB will lend the money because they see a possibility of making a return and because private funding has dried up for these sorts of projects, (not that €500 million even nearly covers the cost of this particular project, regardless.)

nacho libre wrote:

it will be interesting to see within the next 5-10 years, despite the assurance, if our corporation tax rate is revised upwards.

Nothing in the treaty directly provides for a raise in corporation tax. But don't be surprised if the pathetic "assurances" they bribed us with don't last very long.

Published at the end of last year:

http://www.ep-president.eu/president/ressource/static/files/special/EU_Policy_Challenges_2009-19_-_Full_Text.pdf

Tax policies and tax legislation/practices in Member States are further harmonized, especially in direct taxation. This allows for a smoother functioning of the single market, thus providing implicit insurance against asymmetric shocks and crises;

...

[The above] is desirable but has not been realistic until now. It remains to be seen whether the crisis presents a lasting opportunity for more harmonization in direct taxation legislation, such as the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), which the EP has been actively calling for.

Now obviously this cannot happen as of yet, as the Treaty defnes that these sort of fiscal policies are taken on a unanimity basis. But it's still very much on the agenda, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future we were voluntarily forced to adjust our tax policies under pressure.

However I've gone way off-topic. Nothing in the Lisbon Treaty provided for insta-jobs and anyone who voted for it on that basis was very foolish.

Coillte_Bhoy

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

What I mean is if the vote in the second referendum had been a "No", what kind of posters would be put up around the place?

Eh? None from the Socialist Party anyway. Why would they?

Scofflaw

nacho libre wrote: »

it will be interesting to see within the next 5-10 years, despite the assurance, if our corporation tax rate is revised upwards.

was the ability of the EU to oversee our budget a provision of the Lisbon Treaty? if it wasn't, then can anyone really definitely dismiss the possibility that the above could happen?

No, it's part of the Stability and Growth Pact - originally 1997, revised in 2005. The reason it's highly unlikely Ireland will be forced to do something specific such as changing its corporation tax rate is that it would set a precedent allowing the same pressure to be applied to other Member States.

The EU consists of 27 countries, many of them as small as Ireland or smaller, not 26 plus Ireland, and what's sauce for us is sauce for the others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

astrofool wrote: »

Here's jobs that were created in the last few days:
http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0618/biotrin.html
http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0621/jobs.html
.

Now, can all these jobs be directly attributed to the yes vote on Lisbon? Maybe not, but at least some of them would be.

What link is there of the "some" new jobs created, you stated got to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Please explain the link and no bull please.

RandomName2

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I was in town the other day and I seen a poster aimed at Fianna Fail and although I can't remember the exact slogan, it went along the lines of "We voted Yes to Lisbon, now where are the jobs Fianna Fail?"

I think it's true that a lot of poeple voted Yes to Lisbon the second time around because of their fears over the economy. I don't think voting Yes has made much of a difference to our economy though and I think if Ireland had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now.

I don't want to start a debate on the pros or cons of the Lisbon Treaty itself. I just wanted to know what do FF and other groups that called for a yes vote on the basis of jobs say about this issue now or is it a forgotten issue for them now the treaty has been passed by the Irish people.

The real argument is that if we said 'no' that multinationals would leave.

I don't buy it though. I didn't hear a single-multinational company making any claim of the sort (I'm leaving aside the two that actively interjected into the politics of the issue; namely Ryanair and Intel).

Lisbon didn't seem to stop any multinationals from leaving. Nor did the first no vote seem to cause multi-nationals to leave. Nor did it help in the case where multinationals had already left.

Multinationals have left/ are leaving/ will leave due to high costs!!!!!! :eek: Maybe Fianna Fail will one day realise that, though they seem disinterested in the machinations of how economies operate outside of their staple of property bubbles.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it's part of the Stability and Growth Pact - originally 1997, revised in 2005. The reason it's highly unlikely Ireland will be forced to do something specific such as changing its corporation tax rate is that it would set a precedent allowing the same pressure to be applied to other Member States.

That is only a little comfort. Certainly more than the explicit promises that there was no possibility of our corporate tax rate would ever be interfered with (which was just a disingenuous glad-handling of the electorate). Presumably you are aware of the audible bemoaning of our corporate tax rate from certain quarters in Europe.

Presumably, also, this is an area that is no longer subject to veto if the occasion arose?

Essexboy

Anyone remember this poster?

astrofool

limklad wrote: »

What link is there of the "some" new jobs created, you stated got to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Please explain the link and no bull please.

Businesses, especially FDI businesses, were very much for the Lisbon treaty. The fact that these type of businesses are continuing to expand in Ireland could be attributed to the yes vote.

What you are asking is impossible, unless we have a no vote parallel universe, we can't directly see if the jobs were created by voting yes. So again, it's the fact that these type of businesses were for Lisbon, and are now recruiting, is a good indication that Lisbon created at least some jobs.

K-9

astrofool wrote: »

Businesses, especially FDI businesses, were very much for the Lisbon treaty. The fact that these type of businesses are continuing to expand in Ireland could be attributed to the yes vote.

What you are asking is impossible, unless we have a no vote parallel universe, we can't directly see if the jobs were created by voting yes. So again, it's the fact that these type of businesses were for Lisbon, and are now recruiting, is a good indication that Lisbon created at least some jobs.

It probably would have been forgotten about by now. The search for a political solution would be now getting the news, well bar the Euro crisis obviously.

Rejecting it may have had a bearing on the response to the Euro crisis. Slow enough as it was, it may have been worse with no Lisbon.

Anyway, it is all guess work. Who knows? It's like saying we would be better outside the Euro.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

That is only a little comfort. Certainly more than the explicit promises that there was no possibility of our corporate tax rate would ever be interfered with (which was just a disingenuous glad-handling of the electorate). Presumably you are aware of the audible bemoaning of our corporate tax rate from certain quarters in Europe.

Sure - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a suggestion from A.N.Other Member State that we should raise our corporate tax rate if/when the budget review process gets to the 'specific recommendations' option.

However, any such suggestion has exactly the same weight the current moaning has, because no Member State is obliged to take account of any specific recommendations. All that's on offer here is 'non-binding' review & suggestions step before budgets are finalised - strictly speaking, the budgets themselves aren't being reviewed - the review takes place in advance of the budgets being written - but rather the framework of assumptions that the budget will be made under.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Presumably, also, this is an area that is no longer subject to veto if the occasion arose?

Which area? The EU has no powers on direct taxation, and the budget review process introduces no such powers, and couldn't without a Treaty change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, it's not quite that detailed:

The Commission has underlined that the member states have not done enough in good times to reduce their public debt over the past decade. Furthermore, in some member states' budgets were built on the assumption that the additional revenues received during the boom were to be considered structural improvements in the underlying position rather than temporary additions due to exceptional conditions.
...
for early detection, the Commission proposes an early peer review at EU level of the broad budgetary guidelines of each member state, thus informing their competent authorities of the European perspective and guidance before they adopt the national budgets. The approval of the Commission's proposals to reinforce Eurostat's mandate to audit national statistics is a prerequisite to ensure that the assessment is based on accurate data.

That is, what will be reviewed are the assumptions on which the budget will be based, rather than the budget itself - which won't have been written at the point of the review, because the whole idea is to catch silly assumptions early on.

What would have happened is that Brian Cowen would have flown over with the, say 2006 budgetary assumptions that the budget for Ireland would be based on, and would have been told "it looks like you're betting the shop on your property boom being sustainable, which is frankly tosh - if you base your budget on that, you'll be back here with your cap out in a year or two". Another country might be asked "your dependency ratios will be rising rapidly over the next five years - is there any provision for that?".

That's why the review process goes hand in hand with an upgrade of Eurostat, because Eurostat gives the Member States the ability to look at each other's underlying economic structural data - which in turn forms the basis for the assumptions feeding into the budget.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

What would have happened is that Brian Cowen would have flown over with the, say 2006 budgetary assumptions that the budget for Ireland would be based on, and would have been told "it looks like you're betting the shop on your property boom being sustainable, which is frankly tosh - if you base your budget on that, you'll be back here with your cap out in a year or two". Another country might be asked "your dependency ratios will be rising rapidly over the next five years - is there any provision for that?".

All of which might have been nice, but is should be stressed that Ireland will still retain its sovereign right to ignore the comments of the other member states and screw up its economy...

You can just imagine the reaction to the comments back in 2006 - "We're the celtic tiger - what the f*&k do the Germans know about running an economy?"

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

All of which might have been nice, but is should be stressed that Ireland will still retain its sovereign right to ignore the comments of the other member states and screw up its economy...

You can just imagine the reaction to the comments back in 2006 - "We're the celtic tiger - what the f*&k do the Germans know about running an economy?"

I'm sure we would have told them our fundamentals were sound.

cordially,
Scofflaw

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And he'll have to fly back to Dublin and figure out how to break the news to the unions/welfare recipients/taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

or more likely devise some way to screw the private sector taxpayer in order not to offend the little dears in ps and sw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure we would have told them our fundamentals were sound.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fact, I think that was the attitude adopted towards the OECD when they recommended the introduction of property-based taxes which they did from around 2002 on. This was, of course, done after they reviewed our economy/budget as they do on an annual basis, I believe.

Mind you, this OECD review has never bothered the Eurosceptics - it is only when the EU might start to review our budget statistics and assumptions that hysteria breaks out...

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, it's not quite that detailed:



That is, what will be reviewed are the assumptions on which the budget will be based, rather than the budget itself - which won't have been written at the point of the review, because the whole idea is to catch silly assumptions early on.

What would have happened is that Brian Cowen would have flown over with the, say 2006 budgetary assumptions that the budget for Ireland would be based on, and would have been told "it looks like you're betting the shop on your property boom being sustainable, which is frankly tosh - if you base your budget on that, you'll be back here with your cap out in a year or two". Another country might be asked "your dependency ratios will be rising rapidly over the next five years - is there any provision for that?".

That's why the review process goes hand in hand with an upgrade of Eurostat, because Eurostat gives the Member States the ability to look at each other's underlying economic structural data - which in turn forms the basis for the assumptions feeding into the budget.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are now borrowing from the ECB as a last resort unless we want to go to the open market where the rate is fast becoming in excess of 5%,which we can't afford. We have to roll over 78 billion of debt later this year , at what rate of interest? 5,6,7% and thats if they will give it to us. Does anyone realise the enormity of the situation we are in.

And you think they just want to look at the assumptions and warn us of the dangers. I think there will be consequences, otherwise the whole exercise is futile. Additionally if you are in control of the assumptions you are in control of the budget.

I just don't get why the connection between the review and the supply of money is not discussed. Some day we have to pay this money back, we are being fed money now not because of love for little old ireland and our place at the heart of europe but to stabilise the euro. That was clear well in advance of Lisbon.

As for the jobs only the naive would believe it and only the disingenious would promote it. It is a waste of time now scoring political points on this issue, every party was at it. But I guess beggars are like that.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

We are now borrowing from the ECB as a last resort unless we want to go to the open market where the rate is fast becoming in excess of 5%,which we can't afford.

You must remember to tell that to the NTMA, who seem to still be buying on the open market:

The National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) has covered in excess of 80 per cent of its €20 billion borrowing programme for 2010 with the sale of €1.5 billion bonds in today’s bond auction. Total long term funding of €16.4 billion has been raised to date this year, €15 billion through bond sales and €1.4 billion in the domestic retail savings market.

rumour wrote: »

We have to roll over 78 billion of debt later this year , at what rate of interest? 5,6,7% and thats if they will give it to us. Does anyone realise the enormity of the situation we are in.

And you think they just want to look at the assumptions and warn us of the dangers. I think there will be consequences, otherwise the whole exercise is futile. Additionally if you are in control of the assumptions you are in control of the budget.

You seem to be under another misunderstanding here. The assumptions the Irish government makes will be being checked against the reality of the Irish data. Therefore, reality will be in control of the Irish budget, according to you, but I'm not quite sure why you apparently view that as a bad thing.

rumour wrote: »

I just don't get why the connection between the review and the supply of money is not discussed. Some day we have to pay this money back, we are being fed money now not because of love for little old ireland and our place at the heart of europe but to stabilise the euro. That was clear well in advance of Lisbon.

I don't think anyone thinks we're being lent money by the ECB out of charity. When you're being lent money, though, you're in hock to the people who lend it to you, and the international money markets are, if anything, rather a lot less inclined to take Ireland's good into account than the ECB is. The ECB cannot make money out of bankrupting the Irish State, whereas the money markets can.

regards,
Scofflaw

View

rumour wrote: »

We are now borrowing from the ECB as a last resort unless we want to go to the open market where the rate is fast becoming in excess of 5%,which we can't afford. We have to roll over 78 billion of debt later this year , at what rate of interest? 5,6,7% and thats if they will give it to us. Does anyone realise the enormity of the situation we are in.

You go to the lender of last resort when no one else will lend to you. You borrow from them because the alternative is immediate default. Default means no one will loan you money (at least in the short to medium term). Given that the state is borrowing 2 Euro out of every 5 it is spending, it doesn't take much imagination to see what happens when all public spending has to be immediately cut by 40% (To set that in context, the state (very roughly) spends 25% of its monies on each of health, social welfare, education and "everything else" - try figuring out how to cut that by 40% by this time next week).

View

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think it's true that a lot of poeple voted Yes to Lisbon the second time around because of their fears over the economy. I don't think voting Yes has made much of a difference to our economy though and I think if Ireland had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now.

The Greeks if you recall have been having a spot of bother with their finances. To help them out, the rest of the EU organised an emergency loan package (commonly referred to as a bail-out). The legal basis that this was done on was a clause introduced by the Lisbon Treaty - that clause authorised member states to help others "in the event of unforeseen circumstances" (if I remember the phrasing of it correctly). Hence, if you will Lisbon saved the Greeks from default.

Given that amount of money that the Greeks owe to everyone else in the EU, had they defaulted, the financial consequences would have been huge. We would probably have needed another set of bank bailouts to stop banks from going under all over Europe. That would have had a major impact on economies throughout Europe and hence on exports from Ireland. That would, of course, have impacted jobs negatively in Ireland. Thankfully though, we haven't had to face that scenario, as - with Lisbon in place - the clause was there to help the Greeks out.

Hence, I wouldn't assume that "had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now". Voting Yes has meant a potential serious risk to the economies of the EU states has been contained and with it the negative consequences that would have adversely impacted jobs in Ireland.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

You must remember to tell that to the NTMA, who seem to still be buying on the open market:

So you think they have 80% of what they need????? What is the base line, based on what forecast?, also check the interest rate and check out who's buying the bonds (ECB?).

Scofflaw wrote: »

You seem to be under another misunderstanding here. The assumptions the Irish government makes will be being checked against the reality of the Irish data. Therefore, reality will be in control of the Irish budget, according to you, but I'm not quite sure why you apparently view that as a bad thing.

Either I have misunderstood you or you are talking baloney. Assumptions checked against some alternate reality that is different to the reality confronting the irish government???? So not only are the assumptions being checked but reality is also getting a going over??? Nonsense, are you in the pub?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think anyone thinks we're being lent money by the ECB out of charity. When you're being lent money, though, you're in hock to the people who lend it to you, and the international money markets are, if anything, rather a lot less inclined to take Ireland's good into account than the ECB is. The ECB cannot make money out of bankrupting the Irish State, whereas the money markets can.

You are dancing around the issue here, we need to beg from europe to put food on the table for all the unemployed and all the public sector as we can't afford it now. Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money, that is a loss of sovereignty masking it in checking the assumptions and or reality is dodging the issue. There will come a time when things stabilise in europe, we will then be told we are only giving you so much money the rest find yourself (i.e. tax). Its only a matter of time before we are coerced into raising our corporation tax into line with the rest of europe, much the same way we got into line for lisbon. Again you can't expect much else from beggars.

View

rumour wrote: »

Either I have misunderstood you or you are talking baloney. Assumptions checked against some alternate reality that is different to the reality confronting the irish government???? So not only are the assumptions being checked but reality is also getting a going over???

I think what Scofflaw is referring relates to the Greeks. There, the previous Government actually did falsify their economic data to make Greece look better than it was in reality. When the current Government corrected this false information, all hell broke lose for the Greeks as no one really wants to lend money to people out-and-out lie to them.

Needless to say, the other member states do not want to lend to Greece (or anyone else) unless they can be sure they are getting "true data" on the potential borrower's finances. Hence, the desire for the "reality check"

rumour wrote: »

You are dancing around the issue here, we need to beg from europe to put food on the table for all the unemployed and all the public sector as we can't afford it now. Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money, that is a loss of sovereignty masking it in checking the assumptions and or reality is dodging the issue.

There is no loss of sovereignity here. Borrowing from the other EU member states is not mandatory. Ireland, like every other EU state, is free to borrow on the international financial markets. Equally well, we have the sovereign right to screw up our economy even more or even default.

If the argument is "Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money", then you should be aware that we have borrowed for just about every year since 1922 - presumably that means we have never actually set our budget...

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

So you think they have 80% of what they need????? What is the base line, based on what forecast?, also check the interest rate and check out who's buying the bonds (ECB?).

The ECB is one party buying bonds, not the only one. Rates are in the document I linked to:

The 2016 bond was sold at an average yield of 4.521% while the 2018 bond was sold at an average yield of 5.088%.

rumour wrote: »

Either I have misunderstood you or you are talking baloney. Assumptions checked against some alternate reality that is different to the reality confronting the irish government???? So not only are the assumptions being checked but reality is also getting a going over??? Nonsense, are you in the pub?

You have misunderstood me, to put it as mildly as possible. The Irish government's assumptions for its 2007 budget, for example, were unrealistic. That is not to say that the Irish government had no idea what the figures said (although the Greek example is also instructive), but made unrealistic predictions from those figures - that Irish property was not over-valued, in particular.

rumour wrote: »

You are dancing around the issue here, we need to beg from europe to put food on the table for all the unemployed and all the public sector as we can't afford it now. Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money, that is a loss of sovereignty masking it in checking the assumptions and or reality is dodging the issue. There will come a time when things stabilise in europe, we will then be told we are only giving you so much money the rest find yourself (i.e. tax). Its only a matter of time before we are coerced into raising our corporation tax into line with the rest of europe, much the same way we got into line for lisbon. Again you can't expect much else from beggars.

1. The review process does not review Budgets. It reviews the assumptions going into the Budgets before the Budgets are made.

2. the recommendations offered by the other Member States are just that - recommendations.

I admire the drama of your presentation of the situation, but I have to point out, first, that there is an alternative lender of last resort - the IMF. Their budget recommendations are not merely suggestions, though, and the tender mercies of our fellow Member States and the EU Commission are far far tenderer than the IMF would be.

Second, and more importantly, we didn't have to get ourselves into this position in the first place. That our government chose to overspend, and we let them, puts us in the position we're in, nothing else. We chose to row up the creek, and we happily let our government throw away the paddle by balancing our tax base on top of a property bubble that was quite foreseeable, because it saved us paying income taxes.

I can't stop you panicking over this very logical and relatively minor if unprecedented step, but you seem to be doing it on the basis of very poor understanding of what's actually happening, and with a rooted belief that it must all be someone else's fault. You appear also to be upset by the idea that the people lending us money (because they have it and we need it) will be advising us on fiscal prudence. What can I say - life is so unfair sometimes.

regards,
Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce

I've seen those signs too....all I can really say on my own behalf if asked that question is that jobs was one of the last reasons I voted yes.

K-9

So basically we signed up to these rules years ago. Now we are moaning because the rules are actually being enforced?

pitkan

Sleepy wrote: »

Being at the "heart" of the EU is one of the selling points Ireland has to offer FDI. Voting No to Lisbon could have left us out in the cold and lost us that selling point at a time when FDI is hugely important to us as our domestic "industry" (i.e. selling houses to each other) has died it's inevitable death.

Hi Sleepy. Cop on to yourself will you.You were sold a lie by the biggest .shower of liars this State has ever had. If you had voted no nothing would have changed. You were lied into believing that we would be the bad boy of Europe by the biggest shower of gangsters in Europe who know how insignificant we really are in Europe but who don`t want to lose the chance of rubbing shoulders with those who do matter. And by the way Sleepy, that includes the two main opposition parties who, for their own greedy reasons sold us the same pup. Put it this way Sleepy, Say you voted no originally as I did, the Government thought that this is not what we want you to do so vote again and do it our way or the way we want you to or do what you are told you sniveling little piece of sh*t. I voted no the second time as well. I should not have had to do so as the majority vote was NO. So now you want the liars to honour their commitment. Dream on Sleepy. Look around you . This shower are still buddy buddy with their construction buddies bailing out their greed with our taxes and giving them enough stalling time for them to transfer their ill gained wealth to their spouses. And to rub salt into our wounds-Do you remember the headlines a few years ago when parents were refusing to sent their children to those rat infested porta cabins they call classrooms? Well, last year and again this year there seems to be no end to the bottomless pit of money available to builders to refurbish schools-yes Sleepy, this is a good thing- but where was all this refurbishment when the pocket lining shower were awash with money? Sleepy? I think not. In a coma more likely.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

So basically we signed up to these rules years ago. Now we are moaning because the rules are actually being enforced?

More or less, although I appreciate the point that has been made that this is an unprecedented step. A logical one, but nevertheless unprecedented - independent nations voluntarily sitting down to look over each other's budgetary assumptions is an extraordinary step, particularly given that many of the same nations were at war in our parent's lifetimes.

For some people, it seems that's not a good thing, or something that shows the extraordinary degree of trust the EU has engendered between sovereign nations during its lifetime, but a bad thing, and one that demonstrates the appalling hold the EU has gained over so-called 'sovereign nations' in its lifetime.

cordially,
Scofflaw