Another EU referendum on the way

Iwasfrozen

My name is URL wrote: »

Seriously? I'd vote Yes for €50, and help out with the campaign for €500.

I've stopped caring about where Europe is heading, and where Ireland fits in with any of it.

All there seems to be now are 2 diametrically and ideologically opposed extremes.

Those who think that they can't survive without Europe (weak minded fools), and those that see being part of it as something which ensures the death of the country (paranoid fools)

To hell with other people's futures, it's time everyone just looked out for themselves. Like the people that will end up in charge no matter what direction we go in, do.

There's more to life then yourself, most people cop on that they aren't the center of the universe at 6-8 years old.

later12

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its still wrong to say that we as a nation borrowed the money

Nobody said that.

...and deserve everything we get.

Nobody said that.

sensibleken wrote: »

thats not an arguement. The EU is not good at managing it debt either.

There are many different EU institutions and member states, each with different levels of competence in managing their debts.

One thing is for sure, in terms of managing our debt and strengthening our exports as well as our fiscal and current account balances, and helping to restore competitiveness to the Irish workforce as well as pushing through a wide range of welcome reforms in the MoU, the EU Commission certainly is good at managing our economy.

There was a one page feature in yesterday's Financial Times on how Ireland is doing so well to follow the European Commission's prescription in implementing fiscal reforms (austerity) whilst simultaneously keeping our economy in a positive growth number. And it's true, we have the EU Commission (with all its many flaws) to thank for that growth number, not Brian Cowen and not Brian Lenihan and not Enda Kenny and not Michael Noonan.

My name is URL

mikom wrote: »

They may well end up in charge no matter what.
But how much power do you want to give them, that's the question.

Well somebody's going to hold the power at the end of the day. It may as well be those in Brussels than our own lot who are currently just working and acting as messenger for them.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There's more to life then yourself, most people cop on that they aren't the center of the universe at 6-8 years old.

6-8 year olds are some of the happiest and easiest to please people on the planet! =p

sensibleken

later10 wrote: »

Nobody said that.

Nobody said that.


There are many different EU institutions and member states, each with different levels of competence in managing their debts.

true, and were integrating with all of them, not just the good ones.

later10 wrote: »

One thing is for sure, in terms of managing our debt and strengthening our exports as well as our fiscal and current account balances, and helping to restore competitiveness to the Irish workforce as well as pushing through a wide range of welcome reforms in the MoU, the EU Commission certainly is good at managing our economy.

There was a one page feature in yesterday's Financial Times on how Ireland is doing so well to follow the European Commission's prescription in implementing fiscal reforms (austerity) whilst simultaneously keeping our economy in a positive growth number. And it's true, we have the EU Commission (with all its many flaws) to thank for that growth number, not Brian Cowen and not Brian Lenihan and not Enda Kenny and not Michael Noonan.

The troika set targets in areas and the politicians set out how its going to work. The Commision and IMF are not going to run the eurozones finances, nor should they. where finances actually work is for the good of society is on the microcosm which cannot be managed for such a large zone by so few.
If it were so simple we wouldnt have the greek debacle.

If you want the commision to run irelands affairs what happens on the day when you get a bertie, or a biffo, or a berlusconi in that job? At least we could vote out biffo.

mikom

My name is URL wrote: »

Well somebody's going to hold the power at the end of the day. It may as well be those in Brussels than our own lot who are currently just working and acting as messenger for them.

Highlighted, so that hopefully it will not continue that way.

nacho libre

c_man wrote: »

I seriously doubt any EU referendum will pass in Ireland for a very long time.

if it's framed as a choice between voting yes for greater integration or voting no, and as a consequence being left behind in a second tier europe, the majority will likely vote yes due to the dire warning about what that option will mean for the country. so i think ceding mores sovereignty will prove to be an ancillary thing to most people, if they fear that by voting no the effects on the economy will be even worse than what we've seen so far.

later12

sensibleken wrote: »

The troika set targets in areas and the politicians set out how its going to work.

Correct. And this is the most that is ever going to happen in a more integrated fiscal union, as well. It will be the EU Commission enforcing targets as agreed by the European Council, subject to a treaty change.

How it happens in practice will remain up to the respective member states.

If you want the commision to run irelands affairs what happens on the day when you get a bertie, or a biffo, or a berlusconi in that job? At least we could vote out biffo.

The argument is that the EU Commission enforce the budgetary rules, not set the rules.

Sheeps

Lets not hand over our financial sovereignty to France and Germany in case they do something stupid like guaranteeing the failing banks.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

Lets not hand over our financial sovereignty to France and Germany in case they do something stupid like guaranteeing the failing banks.

A referendum, regardless of result will NOT solve the key problem of a financial system totally dependent on infinite growth in a finite world where the limits to growth have been reached.

When will the bankers, economists & politicians cop that!

sensibleken

Deleted User wrote: »

A referendum, regardless of result will NOT solve the key problem of a financial system totally dependent on infinite growth in a finite world where the limits to growth have been reached.

When will the bankers, economists & politicians cop that!

the sad thing is some count on that. I know people who manage hedge funds and they wait for one of these every 20 years or so to invest in a cheaper product and watch their investments grow when recovery kicks in. these are the 'markets'

bedrock#1

later10 wrote: »

Oh for Heaven's sake.

You don't like the fact that Europeans (by a large majority in each member state) are in favour of greater union, so now you're claiming that the survey is a hoax?

Hoax ? Can't be proven.....

But the lecturer in my first class of the Introduction to Statistics module I took in college said always look at who commissioned the research before you believe the statistics....

Hang on is that the European Commission??? :eek:

theg81der

I notice the ramping up of the scare tactics on the governments personal propeganda machine. All the stupid people will vote yes and unfortunetely they are in the majority. I don`t think the government will be complacent I imagine it`ll be an agressive campaign with very well paid marketing/psychological consultants.

Sheeps

Deleted User wrote: »

A referendum, regardless of result will NOT solve the key problem of a financial system totally dependent on infinite growth in a finite world where the limits to growth have been reached.

When will the bankers, economists & politicians cop that!

relax

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

When will the bankers, economists & politicians cop that!

You should go tell them. I can't believe nobody has ever mentioned it before.

Well done.

TheZohanS

Deleted User wrote: »

A referendum, regardless of result will NOT solve the key problem of a financial system totally dependent on infinite growth in a finite world where the limits to growth have been reached.

When will the bankers, economists & politicians cop that!

The limits to growth have not been reached yet, look at the Chinese market for example.

G.muny

Doesn't matter what you vote, if you pick the "wrong" answer they will just do it again anyway. It still baffles me how people were not utterly outraged at that the last time around and how there was a yes vote the second time round. That lack of democracy at actually being made vote again and being bullied in to it or treated like idiots who didn't know what we were talking about should have re-enfroced a no vote for the sheer fact that it was clear the goverment were not to be trusted and did not have their peoples best intrest at heart. If they had of they would have stood behind the initial decision.

And everyone just accepted this, just can't understand it at all. I voted no twice last time and I am voting no again....not that it will probaly matter.

sensibleken

G.muny wrote: »

Doesn't matter what you vote, if you pick the "wrong" answer they will just do it again anyway. It still baffles me how people were not utterly outraged at that the last time around and how there was a yes vote the second time round. That lack of democracy at actually being made vote again and being bullied in to it or treated like idiots who didn't know what we were talking about should have re-enfroced a no vote for the sheer fact that it was clear the goverment were not to be trusted and did not have their peoples best intrest at heart. If they had of they would have stood behind the initial decision.

And everyone just accepted this, just can't understand it at all. I voted no twice last time and I am voting no again....not that it will probaly matter.

being asked to vote again is democratic. it would be undemocratic if people voted no and they implemented it anyway. whats insulting to democracy is an uniformed vote, something you are doing by making up your mind before seeing the proposal.

TheZohan

TheZohan wrote: »

The limits to growth have not been reached yet, look at the Chinese market for example.

While the Chinese markets are rising, the "Western" ones are dropping by a similar amount due to the limits in the supply in oil.

sensibleken

sensibleken wrote: »

being asked to vote again is democratic. it would be undemocratic if people voted no and they implemented it anyway. whats insulting to democracy is an uniformed vote, something you are doing by making up your mind before seeing the proposal.

You really need a don't know option.

cabbage kid

Merkel and Sarkozy have gained a huge amount of power during this crisis. The crisis has worsened and they can see an opportunity to use the fear within the other EU nations to grab another huge chunk of power and basically run the entire system themselves.

They can already topple governments within the EU. All they want is more power, more control. They're interests are not European, they are German and French. It's domestic politics in these countries that has been dictating Eurozone policy throughout the crisis.

G.muny

sensibleken wrote: »

being asked to vote again is democratic. it would be undemocratic if people voted no and they implemented it anyway. whats insulting to democracy is an uniformed vote, something you are doing by making up your mind before seeing the proposal.

I thought it was insulting and took us to be idiots. I mean its under estimating us as a people to say we didn't know what we were talking about the first tim around. The treaty was written to be confusing so we would all just take FF's word for it and vote Yes and then when we didn't the nonsence bullying started up where we were described as just a small island who were stopping things moving forward and had people thinking utter bollicks like we were going to be kicked out of the EU and burned at the stake if we didn't vote Yes.

tayto lover

NO.

later12

sensibleken wrote: »

being asked to vote again is democratic. it would be undemocratic if people voted no and they implemented it anyway.

I have to slightly disagree here.

The biggest problem with repeat referendums is that it exhausts the private resources of small opposition groups.

Governments have the ability to repeat and repeat referenda, why would any regular Joe Soap bother contributing any funding to its opposition in the knowledge that if he fails, the Government can go at it again.

On the other hand, if the Government win, there's nothing the opposition can do about it. So the guy who funds the political parties can be a bit more certain that his financial donation will have an influence on the constitutional amendment at hand.

nacho libre

sensibleken wrote: »

whats insulting to democracy is an uniformed vote,

especially if the answer isn't the one you desire.

Crazy Horse 6

No

44leto

I vote no to further integration, I don't want to live in a united states of Europe, besides it will never work we are to fragmented and have to many self national interests.

I think these feelings will be the same all over Europe, if this is their solution to the Euro debt crisis it is bound to fail.

humanji

It's been said many times and it'll be said many more, but:

G.muny wrote: »

I thought it was insulting and took us to be idiots. I mean its under estimating us as a people to say we didn't know what we were talking about the first tim around.

They held a poll and a large amount of people said they voted no because they didn't understand it. Seems logical enough that an informed vote is better than an uninformed vote. There were several other reasons too, and the government tried to belay those fears. Hence the second vote with the guarantees that the Irish people claimed to want.

The treaty was written to be confusing so we would all just take FF's word for it and vote Yes

No, it was written as a legally binding document. They can't have it being misinterpreted, so it has to be very precise. As a result, it was confusing to most, but it's disingenuous to claim it had been written that way specifically to be confusing.

and then when we didn't the nonsence bullying started up where we were described as just a small island who were stopping things moving forward and had people thinking utter bollicks like we were going to be kicked out of the EU and burned at the stake if we didn't vote Yes.

Plenty of scaremongering on both sides. This was the problem with the first vote. It simply shouldn't have been held at that time, as the government hadn't done their job to explain what it was all about. If they had done their duty, we'd all have had a much better idea of the pros and cons and wouldn't have been tempted to be swayed by things like "we'll be kicked out if you vote no" or "you'll be forced to have an abortion if you vote yes". We would have made our minds up based on facts. The government just assumed everyone would vote yes and didn't bother their holes about it.

What made Ireland look like idiots was the fact that people claimed the treaty was about things that were completely unrelated. But considering FF were in power, it's unsurprising that the average Joe didn't have all the facts.

liptonvillag

eth0 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1208/eurozone.html

Once again we will be expected to agree to give more sovereignty to EU and accept being screwed over further while being fed a constant stream of lies about how further integration is better for us and will give us the jobs and prosperity that never arrived when we voted yes to Lisbon.

The likes of Sarkozy and Merkel will be accusing us of holding up Europe and being wreckless and all this nonsense if we vote no.

This time I'm seriously thinking of putting some new slogans on all those FF posters I took down and hanging them up around the place.

"Vote Yes, we can't afford another referendum"

"Vote Yes, make the ultimate sacrifice for Europe"

"Vote Yes, help keep the Euro alive for another year"

After watching Prime Time tonight. As I suspected, For greater Financial integration we are going to be expected to give up our coporation tax of 12.5%. Under No circumstances, whatever the consequences should we be moved on harmonising our Corporate tax rate. We might as well flush the country down the toilet if we are forced to harmonise the tax rate. What the **** is the EU trying to do to us ? Are they deliberately trying to destroy the country ? If referendum comes up that forces us to harmonise our corporate tax, I will be voting no no no. Lets leave the E.U and slash the coporate tax rate to 8% and create more inward investement.

Chips Lovell

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm

The European Commission on 16 March 2011 proposed a common system for calculating the tax base of businesses operating in the EU.

The proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), would mean that companies would benefit from a "one-stop-shop" system for filing their tax returns and would be able to consolidate all the profits and losses they incur across the EU. Member States would maintain their full sovereign right to set their own corporate tax rate.

humanji

liptonvillag wrote: »

After watching Prime Time tonight. As I suspected, For greater Financial integration we are going to be expected to give up our coporation tax of 12.5%. Under No circumstances, whatever the consequences should we be moved on harmonising our Corporate tax rate. We might as well flush the country down the toilet if we are forced to harmonise the tax rate. What the **** is the EU trying to do to us ? Are they deliberately trying to destroy the country ? If referendum comes up that forces us to harmonise our corporate tax, I will be voting no no no. Lets leave the E.U and slash the coporate tax rate to 8% and create more inward investement.

I could be wrong, but isn't the corporation tax not really that important? It's just something the French demanded and was the first time Ireland said "Piss off". It's more a matter of pride for the French to change it and for us to keep it. It won't make any country more or less appealing to companies. Or at least that's the way it seems to me.