Were you scared into voting yes to the Lisbon treaty?

Min

Remember how we were told how that we needed to vote yes to Lisbon for jobs, for the economy and for Europe.

I voted no but did anyone believe those actual lies, now looking back and seeing the state the country is currently in?

Paul Gogarty today said Ireland was bullied by the EU into taking the bailout, what happened with the Lisbon treaty was we were bullied into running the same treaty all over again.

Despite our corporation tax being supposedly protected in the the second vote on the treaty, we had people in governments and other central banks wanting the rate to be changed, it won't be changed but it is clear we have been for a long time and before the current crisis that we are being ruled from abroad.

Voting yes to Lisbon changed nothing, just handed more to Europe...and put question marks over democracy in Europe. Whoever gets into power here makes no difference, we will be ruled by our masters in Europe.

Einhard

No. I'm not intellectually challenged, so I read the thing, made up my own mind, and then voted Yes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

senordingdong

Min wrote: »

Voting yes to Lisbon changed nothing, just handed more to Europe...and put question marks over democracy in Europe. Whoever gets into power here makes no difference, we will be ruled by our masters in Europe.

And would you rather be ruled by the incompetant greedy liars we have here in Ireland?

More power to Europe I say.

Scofflaw

If I had a penny for everyone who can't tell the difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the bailout, I'd no longer have any financial concerns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

themadhair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I strongly disagree with this assessment since I don’t remember many of the NO lies getting primetime endorsements, whereas the YES lies did. Ironically I think the above attitude exists mostly because of YES men complaining about the NO side lying, while they themselves escaped getting called out on their own lies.

What did Lisbon "hand" to Europe that had not already been handed away over the preceding decades?

One example – the distortion of competition clause. This granted the EU the power to establish and enforce rules necessary for the functioning of market systems within the eurozone. By being ratified this clause also came under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This theoretically made Ireland open to an EU lawsuit regarding our corporation tax rate and its violation of the distortion of competition clause. Which way such a lawsuit would go is difficult to say, but it concerns me that it is even a possiblilty.

Another example – the self-amending nature of the treaty granted our government the theoretical means to escape referenda. Our constitution has certain safeguards regarding what laws our government can pass. EU treaties, since they involve relinquishing certain competences, are examples of law changes that our constitution mandates referenda for. Lisbon is a self-amending treaty. Changes that are deemed in the EU interest, and have the unanimous/majority support of EU governments as required, can be made to Lisbon. Here is the problem. This means that laws our government could not pass without incurring a referendum could, providing the required EU support is there, pass as amendments to Lisbon. By ratifying Lisbon we ratified not only the current incarnation but all future amendments as well.

These are my two major concerns, and these are before you start getting to the list of competences that were handed over (most of which I have little problem being in EU hands tbh).

Wibbs

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This pretty much. I didn't vote yes to maastricht back in the day, because I felt it was taking the EC too far, but since that passed I voted yes to Lisbon first time out.

At least the Irish people had the chance to. Walk around the EU and ask about Lisbon and you won't find that much debate on it from ordinary voters. They never got the chance to vote for it or not. Of course when the vote went against them in Ireland we were "asked" to vote again the right way. Hence I voted no the second time out.

We will be ruled by Europe not because of the Lisbon treaty, but because we have proven ourselves too incompetent to rule ourselves. We were already well on the way to economic ruin even when the first Lisbon vote took place.

Yes but much of the blame for that was an economy overheated by the single currency which was trying to be all things to all economies, but only benefited those in stagnant low level growth.

senordingdong wrote:

And would you rather be ruled by the incompetant greedy liars we have here in Ireland?

More power to Europe I say.

I'd rather be ruled by incompetent greedy liars we can vote out than the scarily undemocratic bureaucratic edifice that is much of the EU. So for me, Yes to Europe as the EC, serious reservations about the EU. Make no mistake now our government is more like a big local council and Brussels is and will be calling the shots on our fiscal policies for a very long time to come. Being members of the Eurozone pretty much guaranteed that.

sirromo

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had voted no a second time and we ended up in the same position that we're in now? Could you imagine the satisfaction the yes people would now be feeling in linking the deterioration in our financial situation to the no vote?

themadhair

sirromo wrote: »

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had voted no a second time and we ended up in the same position that we're in now? Could you imagine the satisfaction the yes people would now be feeling in linking the deterioration in our financial situation to the no vote?

Perry much this ^

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

If I had a penny for everyone who can't tell the difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the bailout, I'd no longer have any financial concerns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree 100%, however one could argue that maastricht and the bailout are very connected. The bailout is coming because our failure is a major threat to the Euro, which was effectively introduced as a mechanism with maastricht. And again one could argue that the level of our current crisis was down to inclusion in the Eurozone which opened up unrealistic credit to an economy already heating up*. The mechanisms for stopping that mad rush were more limited as we couldn't control our own currency and interest rates which would have eased off on the throttle. We had to rely on secondary means(which never came, or came too late).



*interest rates halved overnight and inflation went up. In 2000 inflation went up from 4%(which was considered a worry) and hit 7% by the end of that year.

Min

Scofflaw wrote: »

If I had a penny for everyone who can't tell the difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the bailout, I'd no longer have any financial concerns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I know the difference but we were told we had to vote Yes to Lisbon or there would be bad consequences for Ireland?

Worse than what we ended up with?

Wibbs

Yes but scofflaw is right with regard to Lisbon. It has bugger all to do with bailouts.

To misuse Fintan O'Tooles line in this example, voting yes or no to Lisbon would have been the equivalent of putting on a condom or not after your girlfriend was pregnant. The die was already set.

Scofflaw

sirromo wrote: »

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had voted no a second time and we ended up in the same position that we're in now? Could you imagine the satisfaction the yes people would now be feeling in linking the deterioration in our financial situation to the no vote?

I would imagine there would be some who would do that, just as there appear to be people who believe that if we had voted No, this would somehow not be happening.

I remain glad that we passed Lisbon, because it increased the democratic input we can have to the EU (whether we use it competently or not is a different story). Unfortunately, that's irrelevant to our current position with respect to a bailout, because that's a situation which has nothing to do with the structures of the EU and a good deal more to do with our national position with respect to our banks.

The belief that had we not been in the euro or the EU none of this would have happened remains extremely difficult to reconcile with the fact that non-EU or non-euro countries like Iceland and the UK allowed exactly the same things to happen and have exactly the same kind of issues as us.

For my money, we are looking at the nearly inevitable result of the wave of financial deregulation that started around the end of the Eighties, and which provided much of the prosperity of the last twenty years through a massive increase in credit availability. It could have blown up in 2001 - and perhaps should have done, ten years being the natural lifespan of credit bubbles - but for Alan Greenspan's actions, which staved off the collapse for another few years.

Historically, you can look all the way back to the Dutch economy of the late 1700's to see the inflation and collapse of such credit bubbles, and nearly every sophisticated economy suffers from them whenever the deregulatory philosophy takes hold.

The first question is whether, being in the euro, we had the necessary policy instruments to put ourselves in a better position - the answer, to me, seems to be that we did, because we certainly had sufficient policy instruments to put ourselves in a worse one. Our bank regulation appears to have been a joke, and the government adopted pro-cyclical tax policies that pumped our property bubble even harder. There was no attempt to rein our banks in, despite the clear evidence that the easy credit they were offering was producing a massive distortion of economic activity - and the same in many other economies. The result is bank books that dwarf the revenues of the states hosting them.

The second question is whether control over our interest rates would have prevented our current situation from developing. Again, I'd say no - Iceland managed it with much higher interest rates, and historically, high interest rates haven't prevented the formation of credit bubbles. As long as you have an easy credit and rising prosperity, it will be worth taking a shot on buying rising assets on credit. If you can flip them fast enough - something that depends on the ease of access to credit, not the rate at which that credit is offered - you'll still make a profit.

Had the banks maintained, or been forced to maintain, the prudential maximum of 2.5 times salary for mortgage loans, property prices would have stayed in step with pay rates and the growth of the wider economy. Had they been forced to use realistic long term values when calculating their asset base, or even had due diligence been done on whether an asset was being counted only against a single loan, their loan books could have been kept in check. Decoupling credit from asset bases through anything and everything from encouragement of fudging income to outright fraud allowed the banks to swell massively, but was predictably unsustainable, because it has been unsustainable every time it's happened, and there has never been a soft landing - only a choice between short-term catastrophe and long-term misery.

I appreciate that this is Ireland's first modern credit boom - but it isn't the first credit boom in history by a very long chalk, and all of them managed to happen in pretty much the exact same way without the euro. The euro may or may not be a good idea in itself, but we would have had a bubble anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thirtythirty

Min wrote: »

Remember how we were told how that we needed to vote yes to Lisbon for jobs, for the economy and for Europe.

I voted no but did anyone believe those actual lies, now looking back and seeing the state the country is currently in?

Paul Gogarty today said Ireland was bullied by the EU into taking the bailout, what happened with the Lisbon treaty was we were bullied into running the same treaty all over again.

Despite our corporation tax being supposedly protected in the the second vote on the treaty, we had people in governments and other central banks wanting the rate to be changed, it won't be changed but it is clear we have been for a long time and before the current crisis that we are being ruled from abroad.

Voting yes to Lisbon changed nothing, just handed more to Europe...and put question marks over democracy in Europe. Whoever gets into power here makes no difference, we will be ruled by our masters in Europe.

I wasn't scared no - I thought about it and made the intelligent vote. How come you stubbornly said "well they aren't scaring me" and voted no?

I'd also be interested in:
a) what you think would be different economically, apart from a possibly European animosity towards us, and less of a lenience or tolerance regarding bail out packages and T&C's.
b) why, given this mess, you think EU rule is not preferential to our own governing rule
c) any other pointless points

themadhair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Had the banks maintained, or been forced to maintain, the prudential maximum of 2.5 times salary for mortgage loans, property prices would have stayed in step with pay rates and the growth of the wider economy. Had they been forced to use realistic long term values when calculating their asset base, or even had due diligence been done on whether an asset was being counted only against a single loan, their loan books could have been kept in check.

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I do have to ask how this could have been enforced.

This is probably more a quasi-philosophical point than anything – but how do you enforce any of this with any degree of confidence? The folks who were auditing Anglo, Grant Thornton, have a sterling reputation. They missed the whole €80 million loan swapping that was going on and doubtless countless of other nasties. My worry is that for businesses above a certain size hiding this type of stuff becomes far too easy. Anglo was a massive outfit full of nooks and crannies to hide this sort of stuff, even from respected auditors like Grant Thornton.

This is something I see as a major problem that doesn’t appear to have any real answers so far.

oscarBravo

themadhair wrote: »

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I do have to ask how this could have been enforced.

This is probably more a quasi-philosophical point than anything – but how do you enforce any of this with any degree of confidence?

Stiff penalties for bank bosses who fail to comply with financial regulations.

As a business owner, I can go to jail for failure to comply with health & safety law, even if I am unaware that my employees are working in an unsafe manner. I don't see why future bank management shouldn't face criminal sanction for allowing unsafe practices to flourish in their businesses.

sealgaire

Scofflaw wrote: »

If I had a penny for everyone who can't tell the difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the bailout, I'd no longer have any financial concerns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What do you mean?

Cordially,
Bored of your posts

oscarBravo

sealgaire wrote: »

What do you mean?

Cordially,
Bored of your posts

It seems a little strange to describe yourself as bored of someone's posts, while asking them a question which will prompt another post from them in reply.

If you want a discussion, leave out the sniping. If you don't want a discussion, don't post.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

Stiff penalties for bank bosses who fail to comply with financial regulations.

As a business owner, I can go to jail for failure to comply with health & safety law, even if I am unaware that my employees are working in an unsafe manner. I don't see why future bank management shouldn't face criminal sanction for allowing unsafe practices to flourish in their businesses.

Yes, a thousand times yes.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I do have to ask how this could have been enforced.

This is probably more a quasi-philosophical point than anything – but how do you enforce any of this with any degree of confidence?

Stiff penalties for bank bosses who fail to comply with financial regulations.

As a business owner, I can go to jail for failure to comply with health & safety law, even if I am unaware that my employees are working in an unsafe manner. I don't see why future bank management shouldn't face criminal sanction for allowing unsafe practices to flourish in their businesses.

That's a large part of it - but another part of it is that some of the difficulty in regulating the banks stems from the deregulation of the kind of trading they're allowed to do. Some modern financial instruments are extremely opaque - it's very hard to tell exactly what's at the other end without unwinding the whole instrument. The more opaque such financial instruments become, the harder it is to regulate the banks, because it becomes impossible to actually tell who owes who what and when - and that's a problem for the banks as well as the regulators.

Bank regulation isn't simply a case of doing due diligence on the banks on a regular basis, but of that due diligence being meaningful. In order for that to be the case, banks can't be allowed to deal in opaque financial instruments. Sure, that slows down the whole financial industry, but I'm having a hard time seeing why that would be a bad thing.

Banks - and the financial markets more generally - have a fundamental role to play in a capitalist economy, which is matching people's spare money against investment opportunities. Without them, only individual capitalists with sufficient resources can really become investors on anything other than a very local basis. That means, in turn, that fruitful enterprises - that is, human endeavours that will lead to greater prosperity overall - are starved of the capital they need to take place or grow. In turn, that means economies grow slowly.

However, the banks don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts - they simply seek the maximum return on investment for their clients' money, and that, not investment in fruitful enterprises, is their main driver. That means that it's extremely easy for bank lending to become diverted into assets rather than enterprises if assets offer greater returns - and once bank lending starts to be so diverted, asset prices will rise, and assets become yet more attractive, causing more lending to be diverted into assets. Assets are, to some extent, inherently more attractive than enterprise - there is no uncertainty over return (bar the bubble bursting), and no waiting period. You can 'flip' assets in a way that you cannot 'flip' enterprises, which means that you can realise immediate gains. Unfortunately, asset-based 'wealth' is effectively meaningless to the wider economy, because it creates nothing new - the asset does not become more useful no matter what its price. The creation of new assets at least generates some real input to the economy, but whenever the bubble bursts, those assets will lose all value.

Booms regularly start after a period of prosperity that results from growth in the real economy. People have disposable wealth, and seek a return on it. Invariably, some of them will seek to become rentiérs rather than entrepreneurs, by putting their money towards assets rather than enterprise - cashing out of the game, if you like. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it tends to push those asset prices up. Above a certain level of prosperity, asset prices will be rising fast enough for them to become more attractive than enterprise, and the bubble effect kicks in.

So the nature of the banking system is such that it tends to create asset bubbles. All that is required is that lending is largely unrestrained, which is why we have so many rules about bank lending. Unfortunately, there is a both a philosophical/policy bias against restraining lending, and a practical difficulty in doing so, which is the opacity of many financial transactions. However, for the sake of the wider economy, restraint is required - since the bust that follows the boom has the practical effect of cancelling out much of the boom caused by unrestrained lending, but with much more misery, and even the boom is less useful than it first appears, because it is not an enterprise boom but after a certain time almost invariably an asset boom.

The answer, therefore, seems to me to be to require transparency in financial instruments - and it is perfectly possible to ban certain types of financial instruments - so that due diligence can be done effectively, so that lending can be restrained.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thing is, that was the nut wing of the no campaign. Who actually believed the minimum wage and abortion stories?

The yes side had no nut wing because everyone was saying the same thing - jobs/stability/efficiency. All normal, believable things really.

The no side's sane arguments were infringement on sovereignty and previous problems giving too much power to the eu. They are the reasons people voted no to it.

So looking back on it, the Yes side's campaign was a lot more misleading.

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

The belief that had we not been in the euro or the EU none of this would have happened remains extremely difficult to reconcile with the fact that non-EU or non-euro countries like Iceland and the UK allowed exactly the same things to happen and have exactly the same kind of issues as us.

This is trotted out often enough as if it expalins it all. Not quite. Of course bubbles happen and each bubble has broad differences and similarities, but the Euro as a factor in the case of Ireland is a very important one.

For my money, we are looking at the nearly inevitable result of the wave of financial deregulation that started around the end of the Eighties, and which provided much of the prosperity of the last twenty years through a massive increase in credit availability. It could have blown up in 2001 - and perhaps should have done, ten years being the natural lifespan of credit bubbles - but for Alan Greenspan's actions, which staved off the collapse for another few years.

I agree here. Financial deregulation(money cowboys by any other name) certainly instigated this whole worldwide mess, but in Ireland the level of that mess was negatively impacted by getting into the Euro. Why?

OK we were an economy in growth in 1999, but also inflation was starting to climb. Standard operational so far. Enter the Euro. The big players in the EU zone weren't growing so interest rates were tagged to that and in the shuffle our interest rates halved overnight. That was not, nor could ever be construed as a "Good thing" tm for our economy at the time. Quite a few noted same.

Then with these lower interest rates and growth started investors looking for higher returns on the back of dubious book keeping.

Liquidity also went up and the idea for cowboy investors that these investments were fully backed by the Euro led them to take more risks. Naturally. If you have two bookies you can bet with and one is a huge firm that guarantees you'll get your initial bet down(with interest) you'll pile in there. The Euro was a much better risk on that score than the Punt. It instilled false confidence. Really not a good idea in an inflating economy.

Then we had our so called financial regulator and his gov cronies, with all this growth they didnt once think "eh... hang on".

Yes there were many factors, some out of our control, some not, but my contention is that if we had not joined the Euro, the initial bubble wouldn't have inflated to nearly the same degree, even the most moronic minister wouldn't have halved interest rates and while the hill may have run downhill, it would not be nearly so steep.

The first question is whether, being in the euro, we had the necessary policy instruments to put ourselves in a better position - the answer, to me, seems to be that we did, because we certainly had sufficient policy instruments to put ourselves in a worse one. Our bank regulation appears to have been a joke, and the government adopted pro-cyclical tax policies that pumped our property bubble even harder. There was no attempt to rein our banks in, despite the clear evidence that the easy credit they were offering was producing a massive distortion of economic activity - and the same in many other economies. The result is bank books that dwarf the revenues of the states hosting them.

I agree.

The second question is whether control over our interest rates would have prevented our current situation from developing. Again, I'd say no - Iceland managed it with much higher interest rates, and historically, high interest rates haven't prevented the formation of credit bubbles. As long as you have an easy credit and rising prosperity, it will be worth taking a shot on buying rising assets on credit. If you can flip them fast enough - something that depends on the ease of access to credit, not the rate at which that credit is offered - you'll still make a profit.

It's how the interest rates happen. If you have a relatively stable rate, whether high or low, your contention is broadly correct and all very well(tho low still tends to fuel growth far more than high). It's when it's sudden change. In a "perfect storm" as was happening in this country when the euro came along it makes much more of a difference when you halve rates overnight. The feeling of "we've never had it so good" really kicks off. People, banks and governments start spending more.

Had the banks maintained, or been forced to maintain, the prudential maximum of 2.5 times salary for mortgage loans, property prices would have stayed in step with pay rates and the growth of the wider economy. Had they been forced to use realistic long term values when calculating their asset base, or even had due diligence been done on whether an asset was being counted only against a single loan, their loan books could have been kept in check. Decoupling credit from asset bases through anything and everything from encouragement of fudging income to outright fraud allowed the banks to swell massively, but was predictably unsustainable, because it has been unsustainable every time it's happened, and there has never been a soft landing - only a choice between short-term catastrophe and long-term misery.

Oh I agree. The financial regulator, well he should have regulated. I mean enough people were saying this, but they were dismissed as moaning minnies at the time.

The euro may or may not be a good idea in itself, but we would have had a bubble anyway.

On the latter point I still firmly believe it blew it up far more than it didn't as was one of the big factors that led to here.

On your first point, I liked the idea of the Euro, but the practice seriously troubled me. To make it work without a federal europe would be bloody difficult. To make it work without taxes being out of the hands of the individual governments would make it damn near impossible. Of course I believe this is what is on the cards down the line anyway and what I believe the euro helped worsen will ironically on the back of these and other bailouts of the various nations speed it up as individual governments are indebted politically and financially to the big players. Or it could fail. More likely we could go to a two tier EU. Where the Euro is shared with a core set of economies like France/Germany. I'd prefer the latter tbh. I really really don't want to be any more a part of a federal Europe than we already are.

Avgas

I voted for Lisbon 1 & 2 on balance, like all the Treaties, because the sensible bits outweighed the things I might have liked to have seen more emphasis on, or adjusted a bit. For instance: EU competition law could be a bit more public sector/utility friendly for those countries who want such entities. Yet there was stuff in there about a new EU energy policy which I think is sensible.

TBH I find the OP to be, with respect, a bit pointless at this stage.....the only question is how do we engage with the EU now to move on from where we are?

The Euroskeptics might probably say we should leave the EU (Like Greenland) and be like Norway...or at least leave the Euro.......I think this would be economic suicide; the veneer of MNCs remaining which add huge value to our economy would likely react very adversely. It ignores the fact that Norway's situation is and was very different from ours-they have had a proven maritime sector/economy since the 1900s and they struck vast quantities of proven oil and gas reserves in the late 1960s......we've only the Corrib and Kinsale gas fields (so far) and we've run down our maritime sector (getting rid of Irish shipping and ship construction in the 1980s). Moreover, many people who are found of the 'Norway model' for Ireland forget they are fully fledged members of NATO with their soldiers active in Astan-so their fondness for autonomy in national sovereignty goes in certain directions and not others.

One option might be to ditch the Euro and switch to the Dollar...by pegging any Punt Nua to it.......but that didn't work well for Argentina and the Dollar has its own woes....plus our structural debts are denominated in Euros......adding exchange rate costs to the pay-back calculus.Face it: any talk of of leaving the Euro voluntarily is beyond risky veering towards North Korean textbook economics. When your down in the gutter, you don't willing throw off what is left for rags on your back and parade around nude?

Maybe we need to discuss more concrete/radical ideas?

1. What will happen now to the expectation that Ireland should become a net contributor to the EU budget after 2013? Surely that is not feasible now and any Irish government should make that clear-now.

2. If Ireland and perhaps Greece, Portugal and Ireland remain locked out of the sovereign Treasury bond market in 2-3 years time, should the EU not consider the issuing of some kind of collective EU level Treasury bond-which would dilute the default risk? Yes in theory the Treaties ban it, but they said that about bail outs didn't they...ha! [article 125] Perhaps there are functional equivalents-groups of EU states issuing collective debt paper, that could get around that legalism?

3. The Single Farm Payment is a huge, circa 1.4bn Euro transfer to Irish farmers from the EU. There is widespread criticism that the money is not efficient either in restructuring production or as a welfare/income support scheme to farmers on low incomes. Large payments have gone to very wealthy landowners based on historic production levels. The very existence of such a payment seems up for grabs-it will likely be reduced anyhow after 2013. Perhaps Ireland should plan now and lobby for a much modified scheme to put that money to work in a more useful way, with a much greater share of funds allocated for rural development, rural community employment, re-training and business start-up schemes and much less directed for income support, especially to 'barons'.

Just a few 'crazy' ideas.

Wibbs

Avgas wrote: »

One option might be to ditch the Euro and switch to the Dollar...by pegging any Punt Nua to it.......but that didn't work well for Argentina and the Dollar has its own woes....plus our structural debts are denominated in Euros......adding exchange rate costs to the pay-back calculus.Face it: any talk of of leaving the Euro volunraily is beyond risky veering towards North Korean textbook economics. When your down in the gutter, you don't willing throw off what is left for rags on your back and parade around nude?

I agree, we're in it now and we have to move on from that. My concern if this stuff spreads, is it possible we'll be asked to leave? Or have a second tier "Euro"?

1. What will happen now to the expectation that Ireland should become a net contributor to the EU budget after 2013? Surely that is not feasible now and any Irish government should make that clear-now.

+1000. From my reading of the huge numbers involved I can't see how we're going to get to that point for a very long time. Or am I missing something?

2. If Ireland and perhaps Greece, Portugal and Ireland remain locked out of the sovereign Treasury bond market in 2-3 years time, should the EU not consider the issuing of some kind of collective EU level Treasury bond-which would dilute the default risk? Yes in theory the Treaties ban it, but they said that about bail outs didn't they...ha! [article 125] Perhaps there are functional equivalents-groups of EU states issuing collective debt paper, that could get around that legalism?

That's an idea alright.

3. The Single Farm Payment is a huge, circa 1.4bn Euro transfer to Irish farmers from the EU. There is widespread criticism that the money is not efficient either in restructuring production or as a welfare/income support scheme to farmers on low incomes. Large payments have gone to very wealthy landowners based on historic production levels. The very existence of such a payment seems up for grabs-it will likely be reduced anyhow after 2013. Perhaps Ireland should plan now and lobby for a much modified scheme to put that money to work in a more useful way, with a much greater share of funds allocated for rural development, rural community employment, re-training and business start-up schemes and much less directed for income support, especially to 'barons'.

+1

Just a few 'crazy' ideas.

Not so crazy Avgas. A lot less crazy than some Ive heard.

Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thing is, that was the nut wing of the no campaign. Who actually believed the minimum wage and abortion stories?

The yes side had no nut wing because everyone was saying the same thing - jobs/stability/efficiency. All normal, believable things really.

The no side's sane arguments were infringement on sovereignty and previous problems giving too much power to the eu. They are the reasons people voted no to it.

So looking back on it, the Yes side's campaign was a lot more misleading.

To be fair, only a minority care about sovereignty in the sense that leads to a No vote at an EU treaty - that's the core No vote of about 19%, and the reason sovereignty never shows up as a major issue in the vote analysis. Hence the need for the rest of the scary stories - because in general there isn't anything solid to vote against in an EU treaty except that issue, at least from an Irish perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, only a minority care about sovereignty in the sense that leads to a No vote at an EU treaty - that's the core No vote of about 19%, and the reason sovereignty never shows up as a major issue in the vote analysis. Hence the need for the rest of the scary stories - because in general there isn't anything solid to vote against in an EU treaty except that issue, at least from an Irish perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I said sovereignty and giving too much power to the EU. Do a google image search for 'Libertas lisbon posters' and 'Sinn Fein lisbon posters'

They are all about sovereignty or eu being to powerful/warmongering

The closest thing to the nut wing is a Sinn Fein poster saying lisbon = lower wages. And that's nowhere near as crazy as what DF was accusing of the no side in general.

K-9

In times of recession we tend to forget that people did warn of problems but we ignored them. More fun to blame the EU or whatever you are having yourself.

Just read a good piece on this yesterday, funnily enough:
Irish Central Bank declared its impotence before launch of the euro; Why Spain's biggest banks survived huge housing boom

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious, not just on saying the Euro has survived its biggest test! Anyway, the Irish Central Bank warned Irish banks as far back as 1997.

Central bank governor Maurice O'Connell, told the Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service in early 1997: "There seems to be a perception that the Central Bank can exercise some legal authority in restricting credit. It has no such authority. Any restriction would be inconsistent with European Union practice. Besides, it would be unworkable as demand would probably be met by overseas lenders."
He said the Bank had warned financial institutions repeatedly of the dangers inherent in high rates of credit growth and any relaxation of lending standards.
In the following years, as Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy stoked the property boom with income and capital tax cuts coupled with a massive expansion of property tax incentives, the annual reports of the Central Bank chronicled the letters that were sent by the governor to the financial institutions, pleading for prudence.
In April 1999, the governor had issued a letter stating that an analysis of practices had shown that some lenders had no evidence as to how borrowers came by the balance of their money. The governor criticised what he called, the particularly disturbing practice of allowing large amounts of the borrowers after tax income to go towards paying off a mortgage.
The 1999 annual report notes: "Institutions were...advised that it remains vitally important for them to take a medium term perspective and to reckon with the potential consequences of rising interest rates and a return to lower rates of growth in the economy. All institutions gave assurances that there would be no slackening in prudential lending standards."

IIRC, that was the time banks ditched the 2.5 times earnings ratio and subscribed to the 30/40% of Net income test.


They also then started providing 30/35 and even 40 year mortgages when that particular yardstick became restrictive and finally, 100% mortgages and 5 year interest only mortgages for buy to let "investments".


What strikes me is how the new regulator was able to "impose" new Capital requirements on banks last year. It seems the will was there last year to impose new guidelines but the horse had bolted. Why this wasn't enacted 10 years ago?, well, the money was rolling in!


Tbh, we need to look closer to home at who to blame and it isn't Yes to Lisbon voters.

View

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thing is, that was the nut wing of the no campaign. Who actually believed the minimum wage and abortion stories?

The evidence from the opinion polls taken after Lisbon I was that the various claims by the "nut wing" did influence a small but significant chunk of the No voters in Lisbon I.

I say significant because, if the votes of those voters influenced by the "nut wings" is "stripped out " of of the Lisbon I vote, the result would have been a narrow majority for the Yes side.

The only reason for a person to engage in tactics - like the "nut wing" engaged in - is if they believe they will influence voters. I presume you are not stupid enough to believe that the No side would have engaged in such tactics if they were of the opinion that they would have no effect on voters?

Bottle_of_Smoke

View wrote: »

The evidence from the opinion polls taken after Lisbon I was that the various claims by the "nut wing" did influence a small but significant chunk of the No voters in Lisbon I.

I say significant because, if the votes of those voters influenced by the "nut wings" is "stripped out " of of the Lisbon I vote, the result would have been a narrow majority for the Yes side.

That is very interesting. I wonder how it would have played out if the nut wings hadn't existed. I think it is possible some people saw them and thought ''Those guys are insane, I'm voting yes". Would have been close anyway.

The only reason for a person to engage in tactics - like the "nut wing" engaged in - is if they believe they will influence voters. I presume you are not stupid enough to believe that the No side would have engaged in such tactics if they were of the opinion that they would have no effect on voters?

No of course they thought they would influence voters. There's always a sensationalist nutcase element who think they can influence people.

I dislike your use of the ''No side'' there. Sinn Fein, Libertas and People before Profit didn't use the nonsensical arguments, the only thing they had in common with the looneys was they wanted a No vote. They didn't campaign on the same issues so you shouldn't be saying "The No side engaged...." as the No side were not a united front.

themadhair

Worth pointing out that I know a few folks who sole reason for voting yes was because the Shinners were voting no.

oncevotedff

I voted No to Lisbon on both occasions. So to answer your question, No, I wasn't scared into voting Yes.

Bottle_of_Smoke

themadhair wrote: »

Worth pointing out that I know a few folks who sole reason for voting yes was because the Shinners were voting no.

Heh that brings me back:

Government Lisbon Treaty campaign to consist entirely
of "Sinn Fein are against it" Placards

Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern today announced the government will not
be pushing the advantages of a "Yes" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum, instead
will just focus on the fact that Sinn Fein are opposed to it.

"It has come to our attention that the average citizen isn't worried about the exact
details of European legislation, just the position of Sinn Fein. That's where we'll be
putting our resources.

A "No" vote could seriously damage Ireland's EU reputation. Being the only member
state requiring referendum ratification, Ireland could potentially stop the treaty being
implemented

Sinn Fein only managed to secure three seats in the last general election. Despite
success in Northern Ireland, and power sharing finally installed, Sinn Fein failed to
reap the rewards in the south, which may reflect on dwindling numbers of citizens
who require someone to "have a word" with the kids playing football on their streets,
potentially caused by increased use of computer games.

Dermot Ahern told the Spanner “There’s a growing concern that the Irish public are
excited by the idea of being able to stop a treaty that no one else can, we can’t depend
on economic stability or increased democracy to win this vote. To be completely
confident Lisbon is approved we must make sure every single citizen is aware Sinn
Fein are against it.

Controversy struck when it was alleged An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern attempted
to indirectly influence the Sinn Fein position. An anonymous source claimed the
government struck a deal with Orange Order Grand Secretary Drew Nelson. It is
suggested Ahern agreed to double the recent Orange Order grant provided Nelson
talked loudly about his support for the Lisbon treaty within earshot of Gerry Adams.
Nelson & Ahern both strongly deny the allegations.

Sinn Fein hasn’t been on the winning side of a referendum since the twenty-fourth
amendment to constitution, when the Irish rejected the The Nice treaty. It
was however ratified by the public at a second referendm, which may have been due to the realisation they’d sided with
the Sinn Fein position. Previously the Shinners were on the winning side some time
before Darwin invented the universe.

SkepticOne

At the time of the second vote, whenever I voiced my concerns about the way I felt the EU was going, quite often people who were voting Yes agreed with me however they felt that Ireland as a small country can't afford to go against the wishes of the majority. We would be turned upon and destroyed, they felt. I do remember Jose Barrosso on a visit saying that if Ireland voted no there would be unspecified "consequences" for Ireland with regards to its relationship with the rest of the EU.

BetterLisbon

As someone who campaigned against it both times and worked closely with various no groups I can say the second referendum took place under essentially perfect weather conditions for the yes camp.

1- The economy was on its way down to rock bottom but not quite there so fear rather than anger was the prevailing mood. I did believe that by delaying the rerun until October there was a real chance we would hit rock bottom in advance of the referendum but not quite in the end.
2- Joe Higgins was a much poorer Dr.No than Declan Ganley. DG understood that you had to have a sexy message to win overall, while JH seemed more concerned with getting a majority of Labour voters to vote no than actually winning.
3- EP elections: Mary Lou McDonald and Kathy Sinnott losing their seats was a big loss as they are both great speakers.
4- Coir's campaign first time round was actually really good, they decided on a few high risk moves second time around that hugely backfired.
5- The intervention of the Multinationals in last few weeks was critical in frightening swing voters.
6- The huge media bias that misrepresented the No campign groups and tarred the whole No camp with the wacky bits. The same bias that glossed over the lies and codology of the Yes camp.
7- The failure of the RefCom to react to the lies and codology coming from the Yes camp.
8- Massive massive gulf in campaign finances.

BetterLisbon

SkepticOne wrote: »

At the time of the second vote, whenever I voiced my concerns about the way I felt the EU was going, quite often people who were voting Yes agreed with me however they felt that Ireland as a small country can't afford to go against the wishes of the majority. We would be turned upon and destroyed, they felt. I do remember Jose Barrosso on a visit saying that if Ireland voted no there would be unspecified "consequences" for Ireland with regards to its relationship with the rest of the EU.

Which illustrates how the yes camp exploited lack of public knowledge on EU matters. If people were genuinely informed about the EU and the EU treaties then that codology wouldnt have washed. Its ironic that those who claimed to talk about the "facts" are so happy to exploit ignorance.

K-9

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Which illustrates how the yes camp exploited lack of public knowledge on EU matters. If people were genuinely informed about the EU and the EU treaties then that codology wouldnt have washed. Its ironic that those who claimed to talk about the "facts" are so happy to exploit ignorance.

Codology worked both times though, that is one thing both sides share, plenty of codologists!

Empire o de Sun

I voted yes both times, so the answer is no.

kaiser sauze

BetterLisbon wrote: »

1- The economy was on its way down to rock bottom but not quite there so fear rather than anger was the prevailing mood. I did believe that by delaying the rerun until October there was a real chance we would hit rock bottom in advance of the referendum but not quite in the end.

At the time of this we were being told that there was a soft landing. Mainstream had not yet realised the crisis we were waltzing into.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

2- Joe Higgins was a much poorer Dr.No than Declan Ganley. DG understood that you had to have a sexy message to win overall, while JH seemed more concerned with getting a majority of Labour voters to vote no than actually winning.

Maybe he was not a poorer No. Maybe people were wiser to the No scare tactics and they did not work the 2nd time around?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

3- EP elections: Mary Lou McDonald and Kathy Sinnott losing their seats was a big loss as they are both great speakers.

Seriously?

Mary Lou is a derisable individual who just shouts over people who try and get a word in edgeways and as for Sinnott, she's the religious nut who claimed backdoor abortions were on the way.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

4- Coir's campaign first time round was actually really good, they decided on a few high risk moves second time around that hugely backfired.

Maye they backfired as they were untrue?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

5- The intervention of the Multinationals in last few weeks was critical in frightening swing voters.

If you mean companies stating that they might pullout over the non-acceptance?

They were stating what a sound company director would do, keep all options on the table. It's basic business. You cannot trade with lots of uncertainty surrounding you.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

6- The huge media bias that misrepresented the No campign groups and tarred the whole No camp with the wacky bits. The same bias that glossed over the lies and codology of the Yes camp.

Specifically?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

7- The failure of the RefCom to react to the lies and codology coming from the Yes camp.

Again, specifically?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

8- Massive massive gulf in campaign finances.

Ganley still has not come clean about Libertas' finances.

Corsendonk

I read it, voted yes both times. So no, anyone that I spoke to that voted No in the first vote hadn't bothered reading it and admitted it freely.

namloc1980

themadhair wrote: »

Lisbon is a self-amending treaty. Changes that are deemed in the EU interest, and have the unanimous/majority support of EU governments as required, can be made to Lisbon. Here is the problem. This means that laws our government could not pass without incurring a referendum could, providing the required EU support is there, pass as amendments to Lisbon. By ratifying Lisbon we ratified not only the current incarnation but all future amendments as well.

This is not the case at all and is one of the biggest No Campaign lies that is still doing the rounds. The reality of the so-called self amending clause is a million miles from what you are making it out to be.

themadhair

namloc1980 wrote: »

The reality of the so-called self amending clause is a million miles from what you are making it out to be.

What part was I incorrect about?

whatdoicare

Not scared, no but I know a fair few people were completely confused by it and what to vote. I had the advantage of reading opinions, translations and arguments on here and used it to help me decide but the average joe soap didn't have that and that must have been scary!

kaiser sauze

themadhair wrote: »

What part was I incorrect about?

All of it.

themadhair

Lisbon Treaty wrote:

Article 48
(ex Article 48 TEU)
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

By ratifying Lisbon in our constitution we have already met our constitutional requirements.

Which part was I wrong about? The text is pretty clear to read, even if some YES snipers didn't bother to.

kaiser sauze

themadhair wrote: »

By ratifying Lisbon in our constitution we have already met our constitutional requirements.

Which part was I wrong about? The text is pretty clear to read, even if some YES snipers didn't bother to.

Do you not understand your own last bolded part?

"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

This means a referendum here, as it has been decided by The Supreme Court, in Crotty v An Taoiseach, that a referendum must be held.

hth

themadhair

kaiser sauze wrote: »

This means a referendum here, as it has been decided by The Supreme Court, in Crotty v An Taoiseach, that a referendum must be held.

hth

We already had the referendum. It was the one that passed Lisbon.

Hth.

View

themadhair wrote: »

We already had the referendum. It was the one that passed Lisbon.

Hth.

The article you quoted outlines one of the procedures to be used for future Treaty changes at EU level. It doesn't specify what those changes are and, in fact, leaves it to the member states to approve those in accordance with their domestic law.

Approval of a procedure does not mandate approval of future proposals either at EU level or domestic level. Just as approval, by the people, of the referendum procedure in 1937 does not mandate approval of either future constitutional amendments or future "consultations of the people" (if I remember correctly the title of the referenda procedure that has never been used).

kaiser sauze

themadhair wrote: »

We already had the referendum. It was the one that passed Lisbon.

Hth.

Exactly, and your passage specifies that future amendments come under the same procedure.

hth

themadhair

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Exactly, and your passage specifies that future amendments come under the same procedure.

hth

Not really. When we passed Lisbon we added this to our constitution which seems to me would satisfy any ‘constitutional requirements’:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

hth

View wrote: »

The article you quoted outlines one of the procedures to be used for future Treaty changes at EU level. It doesn't specify what those changes are and, in fact, leaves it to the member states to approve those in accordance with their domestic law.

See the above insertion we made to our constitution. As I said earlier, this whole edifice provides our government, in lieu with the EU, to pass certain laws that would otherwise have required a referendum.

Maldjd23

I will happily admit i am not the most learned person when it comes to politics but regarding the Lisbon treaty we voted no 1st time around...Shouldn't that have been that?...The fact we were asked to vote again made a mockery of the whole process. I voted no both times but would have accepted if the treaty had of been passed 1st time. I made my decision and voted accordingly, i wasn't bullied but i may as well have been...It seemed we were simply going to keep voting till the "correct" decision was met...Sums up politicians to a tee IMHO..

kaiser sauze

themadhair wrote: »

Not really. When we passed Lisbon we added this to our constitution which seems to me would satisfy any ‘constitutional requirements’:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

hth

Ah, there be detail in them there words!

YOU are asserting that this supersedes our constitution and overrides a requirement for a referendum.

I don't, and many people more reputable than both of us are in full agreement on this, most notibly The Referendum Commission.

hth