What would have happened if we voted NO a second time

maxxie

After all the scare tactics used by the Government and not to forget the plain ingorance of the Irish electorate, how bad would it have been if we had said no to the lisbon treaty a second time!

Surely not that bad considering the state this country is in! At least we the people would have maintained some of our soverign independence!

Now we are being forced to pay 29.3bn to bail out the bankers and their buddys! :eek: Democracy is dead!

dvpower

I'm not exactly seeing the connection.

fontanalis

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not exactly seeing the connection.

I don't think maxxie can provide one. Probably trying to blame the EU for Irelands mistakes.
As for the "democracy is dead" comment I'm befuddled.

Kelly4756

We'd be made vote a third time

maxxie

typical boards replys! :rolleyes: die hard fianna failures!

dvpower

fontanalis wrote: »

I don't think maxxie can provide one. Probably trying to blame the EU for Irelands mistakes.
As for the "democracy is dead" comment I'm befuddled.

Ah. Now I understand.;)

the_syco

maxxie wrote: »

typical boards replys!

Typical sh|te thread - when asked for info to backup their claim, the OP says all those whose opinions differ are FF supporters :rolleyes:

Aiel

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

maxxie

the_syco wrote: »

Typical sh|te thread - when asked for info to backup their claim, the OP says all those whose opinions differ are FF supporters :rolleyes:

:pac:

Cookie_Monster

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

well if you'd ****ed up your budget so much you were in danger of causing the Euro to collapse everyone else would want a bit of oversight too in fairness.

CokaColumbo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well if you'd ****ed up your budget so much you were in danger of causing the Euro to collapse everyone else would want a bit of oversight too in fairness.

That's not the point mate! We were told that our fiscal autonomy would remain just that, autonomous, and it didn't! Now, our corporation tax has been deemed "discriminatory" by the EU commission. What's next?!

Its only a matter of time before we become a Home Rule state in my opinion! Give it 40-50 years people.

28064212

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

And if they hadn't "approved" it, what would have happened? Oh, that's right, nothing. The EU have no control over the Irish budget, all they can do is advise. Not to mention that the EU had exactly the same ability before Lisbon and the treaty changed nothing in relation to the budget

VW 1

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty I'm afraid, that is to keep in line with the fiscal/budgetary provisions which came into being with the adoption of the Euro, there are guidelines which all of the Euro countries must conform to. In these exceptional times the ECB was merely helping/advising the Irish Government.

And by the way the ECB is a seperate and autonomous body to the EU, as all Central Banks should be in democratic institutions.

dvpower

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

We broke our stability pact agreements.

Denerick

Yet another boring anti EU thread. Find a new hobby horse lads, your dire warnings of 50cents per hour minimum wage and European conscription were a load of shíte then and its a load of shíte now.

Scofflaw

CokaColumbo wrote: »

That's not the point mate! We were told that our fiscal autonomy would remain just that, autonomous, and it didn't! Now, our corporation tax has been deemed "discriminatory" by the EU commission. What's next?!

Its only a matter of time before we become a Home Rule state in my opinion! Give it 40-50 years people.

If that prediction is based on your understanding that the EU Commission has called Ireland's corporation tax "discriminatory", then we can safely set it aside, because that's entirely inaccurate.

The people who called it discriminatory are two MEPs - that is, Members of the European Parliament - and they issued the statement as individuals, unsupported by their parties, never mind the Parliament.

I appreciate that without eurosceptics, there would barely be an EU forum at all, but would it hurt to be even vaguely accurate?

wearily,
Scofflaw

Hotblack Desiato

CokaColumbo wrote: »

That's not the point mate! We were told that our fiscal autonomy would remain just that, autonomous, and it didn't!

It's hard to be fiscally autonomous when you're borrowing well over 20 billion euro a year to pay the bills.

Denerick wrote:

Yet another boring anti EU thread. Find a new hobby horse lads, your dire warnings of 50cents per hour minimum wage and European conscription were a load of shíte then and its a load of shíte now.

Actually conscription into the Eur2.30/hour European army doesn't look all that unappealing now as it used to

censuspro

maxxie wrote: »

After all the scare tactics used by the Government and not to forget the plain ingorance of the Irish electorate, how bad would it have been if we had said no to the lisbon treaty a second time!

Surely not that bad considering the state this country is in! At least we the people would have maintained some of our soverign independence!

Now we are being forced to pay 29.3bn to bail out the bankers and their buddys! :eek: Democracy is dead!

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

On the world stage there will be uncertainty over Ireland’s political future
Ireland’s influence in Europe will diminish
Ireland’s international influence will diminish
Foreign Direct Investment both from existing Irish Based businesses and potential investors will reduce
International confidence in Ireland will diminish leading to an increase in the cost of National Borrowing
There will be significantly less appetite in Europe for assisting Ireland in our current economic difficulties
We expect that existing jobs will be lost and potential new jobs will not be created
Ireland will not retain a commissioner
Other EU countries may want to reopen the debate on our corporation tax rate

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

The reason I suspect a lot of people changed their minds on Lisbon is that they realised the brown stuff was starting to hit the fan, and we didn't need the fallout from a No on top of what was coming, not because they thought a Yes would prevent the chickens coming home to roost. The first No was the last hurrah of the attitude that got us up the creek in the first place - beggars on horseback sneering at people who were 'jealous' of our 'success'.

regards,
Scofflaw

View

censuspro wrote: »

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

Actually, we'd probably just be finishing the debate on Lisbon III around now.

censuspro wrote: »

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

If a mechanic tells you "If you don't fix those brakes you could crash" and you duly fix the brakes, that doesn't mean you won't have a crash. The causes of crashes are, after all, varied.

Martin 2

censuspro wrote: »

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

You list a series of predicted outcomes for a No vote and state that the Yes vote produced the same outcomes therefore we would be in exactly the same position had we voted Yes or No. You may be correct in terms of direction but you have missed or ignored magnitude. So before you can say that a yes or no vote would have exactly the same outcome you need to go through each point and decide if a yes has made the situation more or less bad and ideally quantify the effect. Good luck with that!

Finally, the referendum wasn't just about the economy, the treaty introduced some much needed reforms of the EU institutions and introduced some positive EU objectives on energy and the environment. Had we voted No those reforms and objectives might be a long time coming.

censuspro

Martin 2 wrote: »

You list a series of predicted outcomes for a No vote and state that the Yes vote produced the same outcomes therefore we would be in exactly the same position had we voted Yes or No. You may be correct in terms of direction but you have missed or ignored magnitude. So before you can say that a yes or no vote would have exactly the same outcome you need to go through each point and decide if a yes has made the situation more or less bad and ideally quantify the effect. Good luck with that!

Finally, the referendum wasn't just about the economy, the treaty introduced some much needed reforms of the EU institutions and introduced some positive EU objectives on energy and the environment. Had we voted No those reforms and objectives might be a long time coming.

Irish people were more concerned about the economic effects of Lisbon than about the "much needed reforms". People were led to believe that if they voted No there would be consequences for Ireland when a Yes or a No vote would have made no difference to the outcome.

I wonder if we had voted No would the Yes campaigners claim that our economic situation was as a direct result of our No vote?

Irish people were also led to believe that a Yes vote meant that our tax regime was completely off the agenda. However our CT regime has come under scrutiny a number of times since Lisbon 2, even as recent as this morning. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1002/breaking6.html

censuspro

View wrote: »

Actually, we'd probably just be finishing the debate on Lisbon III around now.

If a mechanic tells you "If you don't fix those brakes you could crash" and you duly fix the brakes, that doesn't mean you won't have a crash. The causes of crashes are, after all, varied.

I fail to see the analogy. I a mechanic tells me to fix my brakes because I could crash, he then fixes the brakes, the brakes fail and I still crash. The cause of the crash is not varied, it's because my brakes failed.

28064212

censuspro wrote: »

Irish people were more concerned about the economic effects of Lisbon than about the "much needed reforms". People were led to believe that if they voted No there would be consequences for Ireland when a Yes or a No vote would have made no difference to the outcome.

How can you possibly know that? It's likely that we would be in a much worse position if we had voted no, and we certainly would have a lot less leverage in the EU bailout negotiations

censuspro wrote: »

I wonder if we had voted No would the Yes campaigners claim that our economic situation was as a direct result of our No vote?

Well there are idiots on both sides, but the vast majority would have said the mess wouldn't have been as bad. And they'd most likely be right

censuspro wrote: »

Irish people were also led to believe that a Yes vote meant that our tax regime was completely off the agenda

Who believed that? If they actually believed that voting yes meant the EU could never have any influence on our tax rate, and our rate was set in stone for all eternity, then they're idiots and shouldn't be voting. What was actually stated was that nothing in Lisbon (i.e. what they were voting on) would have an effect on our corporation tax. Which is perfectly true

ART6

I was firmly in the "No" camp, not because I didn't see the need for EU reform, but because I was very concerned that other countries whose peoples were opposed (France and Holland) and who voted no the first time round were not given any say in the second round. The British were promised a referendum but the promise was cynically broken when it was obvious that the people wouldn't vote in favour of anything to do with the EU. That is not democracy and it should not be used as a part of the mechanism of reform.

So, if we had voted "No" the second time? Those other member states that cynically abandoned democracy would have progressively shut us out into the cold. Now, in our impoverished state, we could expect them as member states to use their muscle to exact a price from us. Part of that price, I would guess, would be harmonising our tax regime with the EU average. By finally voting "Yes" it seems that we may have delayed that for a while at least, and it may give us a chance to recover.

Note the word "may". I suspect that with our present government, as soon as the EU starts to crack the whip there will be an immediate whimpering capitulation with the routine excuse that EU law gives us no alternative. So in the long run I am not convinced that either vote option would have any effect. Sooner or later we will become a fully paid up district of the more efficient EU that resulted from the abandonment of the will of the people.

At least we won't be bothered by any more referenda.

Martin 2

censuspro wrote: »

Irish people were more concerned about the economic effects of Lisbon than about the "much needed reforms". People were led to believe that if they voted No there would be consequences for Ireland when a Yes or a No vote would have made no difference to the outcome.

Did you even bother to read my post, how do you know a Yes or No would have made no difference to the outcome? I believed and still believe we'd probably be in a worse situation after a No but I can't prove it conclusively. I was supported in this believe by the vast majority (80%+) of MNC CEOs, economists and people surveyed on the issue.

I wonder if we had voted No would the Yes campaigners claim that our economic situation was as a direct result of our No vote?

Yes, they might claim that our probably worse situation was as a result of a No vote, again it couldn't be proved conclusively. I will say this as someone who has met some of our main MNC executives and has been involved on the periphery of FDI (ie. putting on dog and pony shows for potential investors etc.) that there was great relief at the outcome of the referendum.

Irish people were also led to believe that a Yes vote meant that our tax regime was completely off the agenda. However our CT regime has come under scrutiny a number of times since Lisbon 2, even as recent as this morning. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1002/breaking6.html

I assume you're referring to our guarantees, these were necessary to counter the impression given by the No side that Lisbon would affect our direct taxation regime or that the possibility of a CCCTB was more likely under Lisbon. I believe even you have admitted in this forum that Lisbon affected neither. The fact that our low tax regime (btw, not just CT) has been mentioned in our current circumstances is no surprise but has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the Lisbon referendum and would most likely have happened had we voted No, am I wrong? If anything the fact that we voted yes will make it easier to deal with other EU politicians and institution given that they were in favour of the treaty and goodwill goes a long way in any negotiations.

censuspro

28064212 wrote: »

How can you possibly know that? It's likely that we would be in a much worse position if we had voted no, and we certainly would have a lot less leverage in the EU bailout negotiations

Well there are idiots on both sides, but the vast majority would have said the mess wouldn't have been as bad. And they'd most likely be right

By the same account how can you be so sure that a No vote would be any worse just as I can’t say for certain that a Yes vote was any better?

28064212 wrote: »

Who believed that? If they actually believed that voting yes meant the EU could never have any influence on our tax rate, and our rate was set in stone for all eternity, then they're idiots and shouldn't be voting. What was actually stated was that nothing in Lisbon (i.e. what they were voting on) would have an effect on our corporation tax. Which is perfectly true

Unfortunately people are not prevented from voting because of their perceived lack of intelligence. People were led to believe that there were potential consequences for a No vote, those potential consequences have transpired even after we voted Yes so that begs the question what were the advantages of voting Yes in first place?

evercloserunion

When we voted Yes, Moody's ratings agency reported that it was "rating positive" so as bad as we are now I do think we would be in a worse situation had we voted No.

Next time we have a referendum on an EU treaty I will be out reminding people about how pretty much every argument advanced by the No camp about the consequences of a Yes vote turned out to be completely untrue. Most people now see the No side for the joke it was; I just wonder where this commonsense was in 2008.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

I fail to see the analogy. I a mechanic tells me to fix my brakes because I could crash, he then fixes the brakes, the brakes fail and I still crash. The cause of the crash is not varied, it's because my brakes failed.

Because you may have crashed into an oncoming vehicle round a blind bend. Nothing to do with your brakes, but still a crash.

Unfortunately people are not prevented from voting because of their perceived lack of intelligence. People were led to believe that there were potential consequences for a No vote, those potential consequences have transpired even after we voted Yes so that begs the question what were the advantages of voting Yes in first place?

That we would have had those consequences on top of what was already coming - indeed, lest we forget, what had largely already happened. Ireland's bond spread jumped to nearly its current levels between the two votes, unemployment rose to nearly its current level between the two votes, the banks bailouts started between the two votes...etc etc etc.

People looked at those things, and decided they probably didn't need the downside consequences of a second No vote on top of those. That you (and other eurosceptics) appear to believe these things happened after the Yes vote shows a really quite startling ability to rewrite really quite recent history to suit your prejudices. The chickens came to roost largely between the two votes, not after the Yes vote. If anyone can claim a post hoc ergo propter hoc victory on the strength of the timing, it's the Yes side, since virtually all the bad things happened after the No vote and before the Yes vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

View

censuspro wrote: »

I fail to see the analogy. I a mechanic tells me to fix my brakes because I could crash, he then fixes the brakes, the brakes fail and I still crash. The cause of the crash is not varied, it's because my brakes failed.

If you re-read what I said. I said:

If a mechanic tells you "If you don't fix those brakes you could crash" and you duly fix the brakes, that doesn't mean you won't have a crash. The causes of crashes are, after all, varied.

I did not state that the crash that occurred was as a result of brake failure (even though you had fixed the brakes).

Crashes can have multiple causes. You could, for instance, fix your brakes and then drive at reckless speed into a bend and crash due to excessive speed.

Likewise, you can "crash" an economy by reckless encouraging a bubble in one sector - property - due to having multiple tax incentives that all encourage investment in property thus generating artifical demand which pushes up prices.

Not that we'd do anything stupid like that, of course - instead, it must be the clauses in Lisbon that gave increased powers to the European Parliament that caused our economic woes.

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because you may have crashed into an oncoming vehicle round a blind bend. Nothing to do with your brakes, but still a crash.

That we would have had those consequences on top of what was already coming - indeed, lest we forget, what had largely already happened. Ireland's bond spread jumped to nearly its current levels between the two votes, unemployment rose to nearly its current level between the two votes, the banks bailouts started between the two votes...etc etc etc.

People looked at those things, and decided they probably didn't need the downside consequences of a second No vote on top of those. That you (and other eurosceptics) appear to believe these things happened after the Yes vote shows a really quite startling ability to rewrite really quite recent history to suit your prejudices. The chickens came to roost largely between the two votes, not after the Yes vote. If anyone can claim a post hoc ergo propter hoc victory on the strength of the timing, it's the Yes side, since virtually all the bad things happened after the No vote and before the Yes vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

Point is that people were led to believe that there would be adverse economic consequences as a direct result of a No vote. As we both know a Yes or a No vote would not have prevented what happened. But my point is, why was it ok for the Yes side to effectively scare people into a Yes vote by saying that the national cost of borrowing would increase if we voted No, why were those consequences even listed in the Yes campaign when we both know a Yes or a No vote would have no impact on their outcome. By the same account, the No side could have listed all those consequences as a result of a Yes vote and could have justified themselves because that’s what ultimately transpired. When people voted Yes to Lisbon, they did so because they wanted to avoid the perceived consequences of a no vote. At no point were they given car crash analogies about their brakes failing or were they told our national cost of borrowing could increase even if we voted Yes.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

Point is that people were led to believe that there would be adverse economic consequences as a direct result of a No vote. As we both know a Yes or a No vote would not have prevented what happened. But my point is, why was it ok for the Yes side to effectively scare people into a Yes vote by saying that the national cost of borrowing would increase if we voted No, why were those consequences even listed in the Yes campaign when we both know a Yes or a No vote would have no impact on their outcome. By the same account, the No side could have listed all those consequences as a result of a Yes vote and could have justified themselves because that’s what ultimately transpired. When people voted Yes to Lisbon, they did so because they wanted to avoid the perceived consequences of a no vote. At no point were they given car crash analogies about their brakes failing or were they told our national cost of borrowing could increase even if we voted Yes.

The national cost of borrowing had already risen to almost its current levels by the time of the second vote - and fell somewhat after that, only rising again recently as the full cost of the Anglo bailout was revealed. You appear to be asking questions about an entirely imaginary situation in which the cost of Irish borrowing was still low up to the second vote, in an attempt to establish that the subsequent imaginary rise was either a consequence of the Yes vote, or at least something that people were supposed to have believed a Yes vote would prevent entirely.

That's just a little too removed from reality to be worth debating. here's the actual timeline of Irish bond spreads:

http://www.riskwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/spread-ireland-over-germany-10-year-bond-yields.bmp

As you can see, our bond spread rose from roughly 0 to about 0.75% over the first half of 2008. Following the No vote in June 2008, it rose very quickly to its current levels of c. 3%, and fell back around the time of the Yes vote to 2% or so. So if we wanted to engage in pretending that these things resulted from Lisbon, the Yes side certainly have a much stronger case, because what they claimed as a possible side-effect of a No vote had actually happened as a result of the No vote.

Of course, that's still bunkum, just as your claim is, because the difficulties experienced by other countries follow exactly the same timeline as ours:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xehYnShYMA8/TI4oLGo16HI/AAAAAAAAAUY/esnGiIBCCwk/s1600/GOV+2.jpg

Voting yes to Lisbon wouldn't have prevented us having a high cost of borrowing - and wasn''t even claimed to do so, even in the material you've quoted. What was claimed was that a second No would have led to a still higher cost of borrowing - and given that Ireland's rates jumped to pretty much their current levels following the first No vote even though at that time the scale of the economic shipwreck wasn't as clear as it has just become, that's not a particularly difficult claim to make, even though it's quite possibly meaningless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

The first No vote had nothing to do with the recession.

A second No vote may, I unfortunately have to concede, done a small amount of damage to Ireland's economic prospects.

A yes vote either time would have done, and did do nothing to help the economy.

These things are pretty simple - but focusing on the economic issue was a no-brainer for the yes side (even if it was mostly fabricated nonsense).

Why in God's name did the No side have to have Coir as its main-spokesmen? At least the Yes lies were (a) vague, (b) plausible and (c) issues which people were actually concerned about.

In fact: the main way in which a second no vote would have been detrimental to our economy would have been the way that tax-payers' money would have been sucked up to pay for a third referendum!

Edit: I remember now how people were ballyragged for saying that Spain's economic prospects were not helped by voting yes (we'll leave aside the Libertas fiction that it actually caused unemployment). How can yer say dat Spain's economy was no better for votin' yes - sure it needed the treaty to come into effect to see the economic benefits etc. etc.

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

The national cost of borrowing had already risen to almost its current levels by the time of the second vote - and fell somewhat after that, only rising again recently as the full cost of the Anglo bailout was revealed. You appear to be asking questions about an entirely imaginary situation in which the cost of Irish borrowing was still low up to the second vote, in an attempt to establish that the subsequent imaginary rise was either a consequence of the Yes vote, or at least something that people were supposed to have believed a Yes vote would prevent entirely.

That's just a little too removed from reality to be worth debating. here's the actual timeline of Irish bond spreads:

http://www.riskwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/spread-ireland-over-germany-10-year-bond-yields.bmp

As you can see, our bond spread rose from roughly 0 to about 0.75% over the first half of 2008. Following the No vote in June 2008, it rose very quickly to its current levels of c. 3%, and fell back around the time of the Yes vote to 2% or so. So if we wanted to engage in pretending that these things resulted from Lisbon, the Yes side certainly have a much stronger case, because what they claimed as a possible side-effect of a No vote had actually happened as a result of the No vote.

Of course, that's still bunkum, just as your claim is, because the difficulties experience by other countries follow exactly the same timeline as ours:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xehYnShYMA8/TI4oLGo16HI/AAAAAAAAAUY/esnGiIBCCwk/s1600/GOV+2.jpg

Voting yes to Lisbon wouldn't have prevented us having a high cost of borrowing - and wasn''t even claimed to do so, even in the material you've quoted. What was claimed was that a second No would have led to a still higher cost of borrowing - and given that Ireland's rates jumped to pretty much their current levels following the first No vote even though at that time the scale of the economic shipwreck wasn't as clear as it has just become, that's not a particularly difficult claim to make, even though it's quite possibly meaningless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've never tried to argue that there was a co-relation between Lisbon 2 and the cost of Irish borrowing, the only person who has done that was you in your last post. I've mentioned in a few posts that Yes or No Lisbon had no effect on our cost of borrowing. If you remember the title of this thread is "What would have happened if we voted no a second time" my argument is that we would be in exactly the same position that we are in at the moment as per the Pro Lisbon arguments that were made at the time which were as follows:

Whilst nobody can be certain what will happen if we vote no ,we believe that from an Irish perspective alone , it is reasonable to assume the following:


On the world stage there will be uncertainty over Ireland’s political future
Ireland’s influence in Europe will diminish
Ireland’s international influence will diminish
Foreign Direct Investment both from existing Irish Based businesses and potential investors will reduce
International confidence in Ireland will diminish leading to an increase in the cost of National Borrowing
There will be significantly less appetite in Europe for assisting Ireland in our current economic difficulties
We expect that existing jobs will be lost and potential new jobs will not be created
Ireland will not retain a commissioner
Other EU countries may want to reopen the debate on our corporation tax rate

This appears to be a pretty accurate reflection of Ireland's economic and political situation and thats after we voted Yes!

Although the Yes side did not say that these things would not happen if we voted Yes, is it not fair to say that by listing it as a consequence of voting No, people will assume that by voting Yes we would avoid those consequences???

The same way the No side made false claims about abortion, conscription and taxation. The Yes side have equally made false claims about all of the above. Not to mention "Yes for jobs".

evercloserunion

scofflaw wrote:

As you can see, our bond spread rose from roughly 0 to about 0.75% over the first half of 2008. Following the No vote in June 2008, it rose very quickly to its current levels of c. 3%, and fell back around the time of the Yes vote to 2% or so. So if we wanted to engage in pretending that these things resulted from Lisbon, the Yes side certainly have a much stronger case, because what they claimed as a possible side-effect of a No vote had actually happened as a result of the No vote.

Of course, that's still bunkum, just as your claim is, because the difficulties experience by other countries follow exactly the same timeline as ours:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xehYnShYMA...1600/GOV+2.jpg

At the risk of having my words misconstrued as alleging that our No vote caused the recession, I don't think the fact that other countries shared our post-Lisbon trend in bond yields necessarily refutes a connection with our No vote. Our No vote didn't just affect us, but cast all of Europe into uncertainty about its future. In the aftermath of our No vote, people didn't even know what the next Parliament and Commission would look like, in terms of numbers and powers. Given that these institutions have a large role to play in tackling the current economic crisis, I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that this, along with the other uncertainties introduced by our No vote, spooked the markets and drove up bond yields across the EU.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

I've never tried to argue that there was a co-relation between Lisbon 2 and the cost of Irish borrowing, the only person who has done that was you in your last post. I've mentioned in a few posts that Yes or No Lisbon had no effect on our cost of borrowing. If you remember the title of this thread is "What would have happened if we voted no a second time" my argument is that we would be in exactly the same position that we are in at the moment as per the Pro Lisbon arguments that were made at the time which were as follows:



This appears to be a pretty accurate reflection of Ireland's economic and political situation and thats after we voted Yes!

Although the Yes side did not say that these things would not happen if we voted Yes, is it not fair to say that by listing it as a consequence of voting No, people will assume that by voting Yes we would avoid those consequences???

The same way the No side made false claims about abortion, conscription and taxation. The Yes side have equally made false claims about all of the above. Not to mention "Yes for jobs".

The problem is that your case is based on a completely false premise, which is that these things happened after the Yes vote. They didn't - they happened before it. There's no case for the Yes vote to answer, as I pointed out in the previous post.

regards,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

censuspro wrote: »

Although the Yes side did not say that these things would not happen if we voted Yes, is it not fair to say that by listing it as a consequence of voting No, people will assume that by voting Yes we would avoid those consequences???

No, I think it would have been rather silly to believe that voting yes was going to solve our problems or to prevent some of the issues on that list however it wasn't unreasonable to believe that voting yes would make things less bad.

censuspro wrote: »

I've never tried to argue that there was a co-relation between Lisbon 2 and the cost of Irish borrowing, the only person who has done that was you in your last post. I've mentioned in a few posts that Yes or No Lisbon had no effect on our cost of borrowing. If you remember the title of this thread is "What would have happened if we voted no a second time" my argument is that we would be in exactly the same position that we are in at the moment as per the Pro Lisbon arguments that were made at the time which were as follows:
List of points removed
This appears to be a pretty accurate reflection of Ireland's economic and political situation and thats after we voted Yes!

You seem to think because those things on the list happened after a Yes that "we would be in exactly the same position" had we voted No which I believe is somewhat foolish; it's analogous to saying -100 = -90 because they are both negative.
Btw, I never came across that website or list that you seem to be making so much noise about during the campaign.

Lisbon has passed its first anniversary and it's not going to be reversed so better to spend your time trying to change the things that can be changed, for example, the FF government -the main architects our current predicament.

Scofflaw

Martin 2 wrote: »

No, I think it would have been rather silly to believe that voting yes was going to solve our problems or to prevent some of the issues on that list however it wasn't unreasonable to believe that voting yes would make things less bad.

You seem to think because those things on the list happened after a Yes that "we would be in exactly the same position" had we voted No which I believe is somewhat foolish; it's analogous to saying -100 = -90 because they are both negative.

It's all the more silly, though, because those things had largely happened by the time of the second vote.

For example, here's our unemployment rate:

Month|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010
January |4.3|4.4|4.4|4.8|9.5|13.1
February2|4.2|4.4|4.5|4.9|10.2|12.9
March|4.4|4.4|4.5|5.2|10.8|13
April|4.4|4.5|4.5|5.3|11.3|13
May 2|4.6|4.5|4.5|5.5|11.6 |13.23
June|4.5|4.5|4.5|5.9|12|13.4
July |4.5|4.5|4.5|6.4 |12.3|13.7
August 2|4.4|4.5|4.5|6.8|12.4 |13.8
September|4.4|4.5|4.6|7.2|12.7|13.7
October |4.3|4.4|4.7|7.6 |12.8|*
November 2|4.3|4.3|4.8|8.1|13.1|*
December|4.3|4.4|4.8|8.6|13.1|*

As you can see, that rose from 5.5% in May 2008, just before the No vote, to 13.1% in November 2009, just after the Yes vote. It has only risen fractionally since.

Cost of borrowing is the same story - our bond spread over German bonds was 0.5% at the time of the No vote, and had risen to 3.5% by the Yes vote. Again, it has only risen fractionally since.

censuspro is confusing the fact that high unemployment and borrowing costs are present now - and now is a time after the Yes vote - with the idea that these things only happened after the Yes vote. They didn't - they happened between the No and Yes votes, and were, I suspect, most of the cause of the latter. I don't think people expected a Yes to reverse them, either - they just thought that a No would make things get worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's all the more silly, though, because those things had largely happened by the time of the second vote.

For example, here's our unemployment rate:

Month|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010
January |4.3|4.4|4.4|4.8|9.5|13.1
February2|4.2|4.4|4.5|4.9|10.2|12.9
March|4.4|4.4|4.5|5.2|10.8|13
April|4.4|4.5|4.5|5.3|11.3|13
May 2|4.6|4.5|4.5|5.5|11.6 |13.23
June|4.5|4.5|4.5|5.9|12|13.4
July |4.5|4.5|4.5|6.4 |12.3|13.7
August 2|4.4|4.5|4.5|6.8|12.4 |13.8
September|4.4|4.5|4.6|7.2|12.7|13.7
October |4.3|4.4|4.7|7.6 |12.8|*
November 2|4.3|4.3|4.8|8.1|13.1|*
December|4.3|4.4|4.8|8.6|13.1|*

As you can see, that rose from 5.5% in May 2008, just before the No vote, to 13.1% in November 2009, just after the Yes vote. It has only risen fractionally since.

Cost of borrowing is the same story - our bond spread over German bonds was 0.5% at the time of the No vote, and had risen to 3.5% by the Yes vote. Again, it has only risen fractionally since.

censuspro is confusing the fact that high unemployment and borrowing costs are present now - and now is a time after the Yes vote - with the idea that these things only happened after the Yes vote. They didn't - they happened between the No and Yes votes, and were, I suspect, most of the cause of the latter. I don't think people expected a Yes to reverse them, either - they just thought that a No would make things get worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think that's exactly what people were led to believe. If they voted Yes things would get better and if they voted No things would get worse. On that basis I think the Yes side does have a case to answer.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

I think that's exactly what people were led to believe. If they voted Yes things would get better and if they voted No things would get worse. On that basis I think the Yes side does have a case to answer.

That's a claim you've made, but haven't presented any evidence for - even the material you've quoted only claims that things would get worse with a No vote.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence that not only was that belief a major factor (what I see around is "20 per cent of the people who voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty last year did so because they thought it would be good for the economy, taxes, jobs or funding from the EU" - not minor, but hardly major), and, more importantly, that the people concerned believed that things would be better by now, or that those people who did believe it feel now that they were wrong to feel it? It's quite possible, after all, to point to a number of very positive economic things that the EU has done for us since Lisbon - the Limerick money, for example, the Metro North funding, ECB propping up our state finances, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a claim you've made, but haven't presented any evidence for - even the material you've quoted only claims that things would get worse with a No vote.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence that not only was that belief a major factor (what I see around is "20 per cent of the people who voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty last year did so because they thought it would be good for the economy, taxes, jobs or funding from the EU" - not minor, but hardly major), and, more importantly, that the people concerned believed that things would be better by now, or that those people who did believe it feel now that they were wrong to feel it? It's quite possible, after all, to point to a number of very positive economic things that the EU has done for us since Lisbon - the Limerick money, for example, the Metro North funding, ECB propping up our state finances, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You've already presented the evidence for me. A 20% swing would have resulted in a No vote http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/. People were told to vote Yes for jobs however unemployment has since risen since as per your chart. I'm not as naive to suggest our Yes vote has caused an increase in unemployment however you seem to suggest that the positive economic things that the EU has done post Lisbon is as a result of the Lisbon. I don't seem to remember anything in the Lisbon Treaty about the Limerick money, Metro North or the ECB propping up our state finances, maybe you can tell me where exactly those provisions are contained in the treaty or provide some evidence that supports the belief that we would only have got those things as a result of our Yes vote.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

You've already presented the evidence for me. A 20% swing would have resulted in a No vote http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/. People were told to vote Yes for jobs however unemployment has since risen since as per your chart. I'm not as naive to suggest our Yes vote has caused an increase in unemployment however you seem to suggest that the positive economic things that the EU has done post Lisbon is as a result of the Lisbon. I don't seem to remember anything in the Lisbon Treaty about the Limerick money, Metro North or the ECB propping up our state finances, maybe you can tell me where exactly those provisions are contained in the treaty or provide some evidence that supports the belief that we would only have got those things as a result of our Yes vote.

I'm not suggesting that any of them are or were - what I'm asking is whether those people who voted Yes on the strength of believing it would be better for the economy now feel that they were wrong to do so, and that whatever they were expecting has not materialised.

Not only have you not answered those questions (or even tried to), but you've assumed that the 20% who voted Yes for better economic prospects represented a swing vote - that is, that they would have otherwise voted No - that they were persuaded to do so by the Yes side, and that whatever they were expecting has not materialised within the time frame they believed it would happen in.

Let's review your "case":

1. you have presented no evidence that those who mentioned better economic prospects as a reason for voting Yes would have voted No otherwise - but you have explicitly assumed it to be true, whereas you don't even know if it was their sole reason, or even their main reason;

2. you have presented no evidence that those who voted Yes did so because they were persuaded that that was the case by the Yes campaigns, or even any evidence that the Yes campaigns claimed that to be the case - yet you have explicitly assumed the former to be true, and based your entire case on the latter;

3. you have presented no evidence that "better economic prospects" meant a reversal of the trends then in place - but you have implicitly assumed it to be true;

4. you have presented no evidence that the "better economic prospects" were expected to have materialised by now - but you have implicitly assumed it to be true;

5. you have presented no evidence that voters who mentioned "better economic prospects" as a reason for voting Yes feel dissatisfied with their choice - but, again, you have assumed it to be true;

6. finally, and very damningly, you didn't even know whether "better economic prospects" was a major issue in the debate before you claimed the Yes side had a case to answer - I found out the figure for you. Clearly you were persuaded long before you had any evidence, because you only have the evidence now, courtesy of me, and yet you'd already decided and argued that there was a case!

We really can't have a meaningful debate on the issue if you not only ignore the facts presented (unemployment rose largely before Lisbon 2, and has in effect been stable since, both rising and falling only slightly) but make up others as needed to bolster your case.

How can I argue against made-up facts? Why bother with this elaborate charade when you're perfectly and very visibly content to condemn the Yes side, and the Yes vote, without requiring any concrete evidence whatsoever - indeed, relying on me to provide it in the course of the debate?

regards,
Scofflaw

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

The first No vote had nothing to do with the recession.

But it did have a whole lot to do with the cacophony of lies, half-truths and mis-representations used by the No side to secure its very narrow winning margin.

Sadly for the No side though, it quickly became apparent after the No vote, that the disparate groups who made it up would be hard put to agree the day of the week it was, much less a common negotiation position that the government might have negotiated at EU level.

Therefore, it was left up to the government to decide the basis for the subsequent referendum.

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that any of them are or were - what I'm asking is whether those people who voted Yes on the strength of believing it would be better for the economy now feel that they were wrong to do so, and that whatever they were expecting has not materialised.

Not only have you not answered those questions (or even tried to), but you've assumed that the 20% who voted Yes for better economic prospects represented a swing vote - that is, that they would have otherwise voted No - that they were persuaded to do so by the Yes side, and that whatever they were expecting has not materialised within the time frame they believed it would happen in.

Let's review your "case":

1. you have presented no evidence that those who mentioned better economic prospects as a reason for voting Yes would have voted No otherwise - but you have explicitly assumed it to be true, whereas you don't even know if it was their sole reason, or even their main reason;

2. you have presented no evidence that those who voted Yes did so because they were persuaded that that was the case by the Yes campaigns, or even any evidence that the Yes campaigns claimed that to be the case - yet you have explicitly assumed the former to be true, and based your entire case on the latter;

3. you have presented no evidence that "better economic prospects" meant a reversal of the trends then in place - but you have implicitly assumed it to be true;

4. you have presented no evidence that the "better economic prospects" were expected to have materialised by now - but you have implicitly assumed it to be true;

5. you have presented no evidence that voters who mentioned "better economic prospects" as a reason for voting Yes feel dissatisfied with their choice - but, again, you have assumed it to be true;

6. finally, and very damningly, you didn't even know whether "better economic prospects" was a major issue in the debate before you claimed the Yes side had a case to answer - I found out the figure for you. Clearly you were persuaded long before you had any evidence, because you only have the evidence now, courtesy of me, and yet you'd already decided and argued that there was a case!

We really can't have a meaningful debate on the issue if you not only ignore the facts presented (unemployment rose largely before Lisbon 2, and has in effect been stable since, both rising and falling only slightly) but make up others as needed to bolster your case.

How can I argue against made-up facts? Why bother with this elaborate charade when you're perfectly and very visibly content to condemn the Yes side, and the Yes vote, without requiring any concrete evidence whatsoever - indeed, relying on me to provide it in the course of the debate?

regards,
Scofflaw

If you want to bow out of the debate that’s your choice, I’ll assume in doing so that you’re giving me the last word.

My point from the beginning and in response to the OP was that:

We would be in exactly the same position had we voted No and that nothing in Lisbon would have changed any of that.

Here are the facts. Unemployment has risen since Lisbon 2, Ireland’s cost of borrowing has increased, our CT rate has been reopened for debate by other countries. These were all claims made by the yes side as a consequence of a No vote.

The only made up facts were by you when you suggested that the Limerick Money, Metro North and access to the bail out fund were as a result of our Yes vote.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

If you want to bow out of the debate that’s your choice, I’ll assume in doing so that you’re giving me the last word.

My point from the beginning and in response to the OP was that:

We would be in exactly the same position had we voted No and that nothing in Lisbon would have changed any of that.

Here are the facts. Unemployment has risen since Lisbon 2, Ireland’s cost of borrowing has increased, our CT rate has been reopened for debate by other countries. These were all claims made by the yes side as a consequence of a No vote.

The only made up facts were by you when you suggested that the Limerick Money, Metro North and access to the bail out fund were as a result of our Yes vote.

You haven't proved a single thing, you haven't addressed any of my points, and you've claimed things I haven't said. You may certainly have the last word if you need that too.

amused,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

censuspro wrote: »

If you want to bow out of the debate that’s your choice, I’ll assume in doing so that you’re giving me the last word.

My point from the beginning and in response to the OP was that:

We would be in exactly the same position had we voted No and that nothing in Lisbon would have changed any of that.

Here are the facts. Unemployment has risen since Lisbon 2, Ireland’s cost of borrowing has increased, our CT rate has been reopened for debate by other countries. These were all claims made by the yes side as a consequence of a No vote.

The only made up facts were by you when you suggested that the Limerick Money, Metro North and access to the bail out fund were as a result of our Yes vote.

You did not make that point anywhere before and if you did then prove it, what you said exactly -a word whose meaning you seemingly don't understand- was "What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment." this is the first time you said/added "nothing in Lisbon would have changed any of that". We have been talking about the overall consequences of a particular vote not just the effects of the contents of the treaty and this takes in things such as international perception affecting the cost of borrowing and FDI, goodwill in negociations etc, etc. By the way, the treaty has objectives in the areas of energy and the environment which are likely to reduce the cost of imported (to EU) fuel, and in the area of green energy generation (I'll quote the articles if you really want.); it is hoped that these initiatives will yield additional jobs in the long term.

As Scofflaw has pointed out the sharp upward trend in the cost of borrowing and unemployment had started before the referendum and the economic argument from the Yes side was that a Yes was more likely to help the situation and No more likely to hinder it. Now you seem to think that our current predicament would be exactly the same had we voted No whereas I think we'd be worse off, and that in the long term especially when the effects on FDI would start to kick in things would get even worse.

At the time of the referendum and immediately afterwards surveys showed that:
The majority of CEOs in US companies operating in Ireland believed that voting Yes would be beneficial to their businesses, see here.
The majority of economists responding to a survey believed that YES would be good for the economy and FDI, see here.
A post Lisbon public opinion poll showed that 80% thought the Yes vote would help, as opposed to only 15% who thought it would hinder recovery, see here
The idea that a No would have no affect on the economy was very much a minority opinion and I still think it's a minority opinion in spite of what you've said.

I don't think anything that I, Scofflaw, View or the other posters who replied to you or what the heads of the MNC's in Ireland have said is going to change your mind.

censuspro

Martin 2 wrote: »

You did not make that point anywhere before and if you did then prove it, what you said exactly -a word whose meaning you seemingly don't understand- was "What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment." this is the first time you said/added "nothing in Lisbon would have changed any of that". We have been talking about the overall consequences of a particular vote not just the effects of the contents of the treaty and this takes in things such as international perception affecting the cost of borrowing and FDI, goodwill in negotiations etc, etc. By the way, the treaty has objectives in the areas of energy and the environment which are likely to reduce the cost of imported (to EU) fuel, and in the area of green energy generation (I'll quote the articles if you really want.); it is hoped that these initiatives will yield additional jobs in the long term.

As Scofflaw has pointed out the sharp upward trend in the cost of borrowing and unemployment had started before the referendum and the economic argument from the Yes side was that a Yes was more likely to help the situation and No more likely to hinder it. Now you seem to think that our current predicament would be exactly the same had we voted No whereas I think we'd be worse off, and that in the long term especially when the effects on FDI would start to kick in things would get even worse.

At the time of the referendum and immediately afterwards surveys showed that:
The majority of CEOs in US companies operating in Ireland believed that voting Yes would be beneficial to their businesses, see here.
The majority of economists responding to a survey believed that YES would be good for the economy and FDI, see here.
A post Lisbon public opinion poll showed that 80% thought the Yes vote would help, as opposed to only 15% who thought it would hinder recovery, see here
The idea that a No would have no affect on the economy was very much a minority opinion and I still think it's a minority opinion in spite of what you've said.

I don't think anything that I, Scofflaw, View or the other posters who replied to you or what the heads of the MNC's in Ireland have said is going to change your mind.

You're welcome to read through my previous posts on this thread where I've said previously that a Yes or a No vote had no impact on our current situation. I'm fully aware that the business community was in support of a Yes vote and the post Lisbon poll that you refer to is just an opinion. Can you prove to me how a yes vote has improved our situation?

What you seem to suggest is that the people voted Yes because they believed things would be worse if we vote No? What I remeber is that people were told to vote Yes for jobs and were told that of they voted No it would lead to increased unemployment, increased cost of borrowing and or corporation tax would be open to debate from other countries. I dint believe that Lisbon had anything to do with unemployment, our cost of borrowing or our corporation tax but that is what the Yes side told people during the debate!

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

You're welcome to read through my previous posts on this thread where I've said previously that a Yes or a No vote had no impact on our current situation. I'm fully aware that the business community was in support of a Yes vote and the post Lisbon poll that you refer to is just an opinion. Can you prove to me how a yes vote has improved our situation?

What you seem to suggest is that the people voted Yes because they believed things would be worse if we vote No? What I remeber is that people were told to vote Yes for jobs and were told that of they voted No it would lead to increased unemployment, increased cost of borrowing and or corporation tax would be open to debate from other countries. I dint believe that Lisbon had anything to do with unemployment, our cost of borrowing or our corporation tax but that is what the Yes side told people during the debate!

Why would one bother, though, when you're so patently unwilling to stick to the facts, and so clearly not disposed in any way to change your mind, which was very obviously made up before you had any evidence? All you're doing here is trying to ask "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style questions, and not really even succeeding at that.

regards,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

censuspro wrote: »

You're welcome to read through my previous posts on this thread where I've said previously that a Yes or a No vote had no impact on our current situation. I'm fully aware that the business community was in support of a Yes vote and the post Lisbon poll that you refer to is just an opinion.

I didn't say that you didn't say that, in fact that was in the sentence from you that I quoted. What I said was that this was the first post in which you mentioned that "nothing in Lisbon would have changed any of that" whereas you seemed to be implying that you were talking about the contents of the treaty from the beginning. This discussion was primarily about consequences of a particular vote not just the effects of the contents of the treaty and this takes in things such as international perception affecting the cost of borrowing and FDI, goodwill in negociations etc, etc. In fact I think I was the first person to mention the contents of the treaty, its reforms and objectives.

Can you prove to me how a yes vote has improved our situation?

No, I can't prove conclusively that a yes has improved our situation, never said I could, no more than you can prove that we'd be in "exactly the same position" after a No which by the way is harder to prove as it represents a single point on an infinite set of points between better and worse. Without the benefit of prophesy or having a parallel universe where people voted No all we can do is use our commonsense and the expert opinions of those who are most effected by the outcome of the vote such as MNC CEO's to assess the situation.
By the way, the cost of borrowing increased after the first referendum then dropped in the immediate aftermath of the second, it has since increased again due to the cost of the bank bailouts but it is entirely possible that it is still carrying that decrease as a result of a yes. If you look at the criteria for assessing a sovereign's credit rating, political stability is is one of the main points which is considered; I seem to remember it was the main point in Standard and Poor's list of 6 main criteria. Now which would be perceived as a more politically stable Ireland or Europe, one in which we stopped the Lisbon treaty, putting EU reform into Limbo, or one which passed it?
I think the Yes has probably made it easier to deal with the EU institutions and politicians unless of course you believe that goodwill and perception counts for nothing.

What you seem to suggest is that the people voted Yes because they believed things would be worse if we vote No? What I remeber is that people were told to vote Yes for jobs and were told that of they voted No it would lead to increased unemployment, increased cost of borrowing and or corporation tax would be open to debate from other countries.

Wrong again, implicit in every statement about the consequences of a No vote was that it was relative to the consequences of a Yes vote, that it was probabilistic because it was referring to a future event and that there was no fixed timescale. So Yes for Jobs meant that a yes was more likely to help the job situation than a No and nothing more, what did you expect a detailed breakdown of the reasons why on a lamppost poster. -think of all the traffic accidents it would have caused:).

I dint believe that Lisbon had anything to do with unemployment, our cost of borrowing or our corporation tax but that is what the Yes side told people during the debate!

You are entitled to believe what you want and at this stage it's becoming pretty clear that nothing anyone says will change your mind.
.

censuspro

Martin 2 wrote: »

Wrong again, implicit in every statement about the consequences of a No vote was that it was relative to the consequences of a Yes vote, that it was probabilistic because it was referring to a future event and that there was no fixed timescale. So Yes for Jobs meant that a yes was more likely to create jobs than a No and nothing more, what did you expect a detailed breakdown of the reasons why on a lamppost poster. -think of all the traffic accidents it would have caused:).

You are entitled to believe what you want and at this stage it's becoming pretty clear that nothing anyone says will change your mind.

So let me see if I got this straight - every statement made by the Yes side was as an implicit consequence of a No vote about a probabilistic future event with no fixed timescale???

Is that supposed to be a wind up?

Do you have a link to one of those implicit statements about a probabilistic future event with no fixed timescale? I don't remember seeing any.

Martin 2

censuspro wrote: »

So let me see if I got this straight - every statement made by the Yes side was as an implicit consequence of a No vote about a probabilistic future event with no fixed timescale???

Is that supposed to be a wind up?

Do you have a link to one of those implicit statements about a probabilistic future event with no fixed timescale? I don't remember seeing any.

I never said anything like that so here's a more detailed explanation specially for you.
When we talk about the situation after a Yes vote we need to consider what the situation would be after a No vote, it's implicit because there were 2 options in the referendum. So when you say that such and such happened after a Yes vote you need to ask how would it have been different after a No vote would it have been better or worse.
The statements were made before the referendum and referred to a future situation hence all such statements are probabilistic, unless you can predict the future with certainty, whereas statements about the past are definite or historic.
Timescale is important as some of the effects of the treaty take a certain time to manifest themselves and it's pretty obvious that nobody is going to say that in 1 year x number of jobs will be created, lost or preserved.

Now do you understand?
.