Michael Noonan fires first shots in referendum battle

mike65

Either we're in or we're out, speaking on Bloomberg

Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan said any referendum on the new European Union accord may effectively be a vote on the country’s continued euro membership.

The Irish government will start assessing whether it needs to hold a vote after it receives a first draft of the text by the end of the year, Noonan said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse” in London today. Irish voters have rejected changes to Europe’s governing treaties twice in the last decade.

“It really comes down on this occasion to a very simple issue; do you want to continue in the euro or not,” Noonan said. “Faced with that question, I think the Irish people will pass such a referendum.”

Obviously a scare tactic but not a surprise.

Manach

A tad early for the minister to be giving his opinion or setting the agenda, given that the issue might not require a referendum - based on AG's decision next March.

Outkast_IRE

"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

im voting no if it comes down to it just to see what happens

steelcityblues

I would love to see his smug talk to international media come back and haunt him.

mistermouse

steelcityblues wrote: »

I would love to see his smug talk to international media come back and haunt him.

Didn't think it would be long before Europe treated us like they did Greece recently. Just didn't think the bullying would start with our own gvt . I hope all fine Gael and labour voters will use their ballot papers more wisely in future

baddebt

mike65 wrote: »

Either we're in or we're out, speaking on Bloomberg



Obviously a scare tactic but not a surprise.

total scare tactics , as far as I can see the referendum would be a vote as to whether or not we want the french and Germans to run our country , after all they will have a say on all budgets and growth rates ,
we should be incharge of our own destiny (problem is though our current political system will also hinder our ability),

vote no , out from the euro ,possibly bring the euro down ,
economy collapse's .................but at leaast we will be starting from scratch , level playing field ,
currently in the eurozone , the rich the richer , the rest of us get shafted (sounds a bit like the USA REALLY DOESN'T IT)

jank

I think people are looking at this the wrong way. This is a shot across the bows of the EU. Basally it says "Give us a great deal in reducing our debt or else we are out" Good tactic in fairness.

nesf

jank wrote: »

I think people are looking at this the wrong way. This is a shot across the bows of the EU. Basally it says "Give us a great deal in reducing our debt or else we are out" Good tactic in fairness.

Exactly my thinking. Noonan et al are trying to eek out some concessions to make a referendum more palatable which is a good tactic. We might get something worthwhile out of it, who knows?

mike65

I'm not too sure how threatening to exit the euro works really. Sure it would be a bit of an embarrassment for the Franco-German axis and it might spook the market a bit more but they'd get over it. Be interesting to see who blinked first.

the groutch

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

Bullseye1

It's been said many times there is no mechanism to leave the Euro and still remain within the EU.

Manach

Surely as EU citizens, we should be judging this treaty on how well it deals with the current Europe wide crisis, and not just look as to how it benefits/disadvantages Ireland?

steelcityblues

mike65 wrote: »

I'm not too sure how threatening to exit the euro works really. Sure it would be a bit of an embarrassment for the Franco-German axis and it might spook the market a bit more but they'd get over it. Be interesting to see who blinked first.

They won't get over it. Merkel and Sarkozy have lived on fear and threats to other eurozone nations, all for their hopes of a more two tier system, where they can control the central economy.

bleg

Didn't we have a referendum on whether we were in or out of the euro already?

opinionated3

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

Ha ha...thought the exact same thing myself. Will be voting no.

Laois_Man

jank wrote: »

I think people are looking at this the wrong way. This is a shot across the bows of the EU. Basally it says "Give us a great deal in reducing our debt or else we are out" Good tactic in fairness.

My worry is that it is infact you who's reading it the wrong way!
I don't think the EU will be in the slightest bit worried if our referendum asked the question "Stay in the Euro: Yes, No". They KNOW that a referendum with that question would be EASILY passed here without them even having to bribe us - because leaving the Euro would be so so dangerous for OURSELVES!

On the other hand, I can't equate in my own mind how if we need a referendum to allow our tax policies to be dictated by Europe, how does asking the above question legally result in this particular change to the Constitution when the ballot paper doesn't actually seek that specific permission.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's been said many times there is no mechanism to leave the Euro and still remain within the EU.

There is no mechanism to be kicked out of the Euro just because you don't sign a new treaty!

Manach wrote: »

Surely as EU citizens, we should be judging this treaty on how well it deals with the current Europe wide crisis, and not just look as to how it benefits/disadvantages Ireland?

Do you think Merkel/Sarcozy will come up with text to the treaty that's in any way disadvantageous to Germany/France? Like ****e they will!!

Sand

@Laois Man

Quote:
Originally Posted by jank
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. This is a shot across the bows of the EU. Basally it says "Give us a great deal in reducing our debt or else we are out" Good tactic in fairness.


My worry is that it is infact you who's reading it the wrong way!
I don't think the EU will be in the slightest bit worried if our referendum asked the question "Stay in the Euro: Yes, No". They KNOW that a referendum with that question would be EASILY passed here without them even having to bribe us - because leaving the Euro would be so so dangerous for OURSELVES!

Yeah - I agree with this. It was France/Germany which immediately began spinning furiously that any Greek referedumn would be a vote on Euro zone membership. All Noonan is doing here is doing their spinning for them.

The place to say "We want X, give it to us and we will get you Y" is in private negotiations. Noonan already got slapped about like a red headed stepchild with megaphone diplomacy back in the summer - remember how he was loudly proclaiming that he was going to ask the ECB to allow Ireland to default on bank debt?

Quite clearly the civil service or Merkel and Sarkozy have told Noonan to say this, but its something that could blow up in their faces quite quickly. There is quite simply no guarantee whatsoever that a referendum will pass here - the *best* chance of passing it is to be very clear on what the referedum is *not* about and to concentrate very clearly on what it *is* about and what the benefits are to Ireland.

This sort of stupid scaremongering is exactly the path *not* to take. People are sick of being terrorised, theyre in a sullen and defiant mood already. Support for the fecking crazies (Sinn Fein and the ULA) is rising. If people are backed into a corner, and offered only threats, they'll deliver a massive No vote just to regain some control over their own lives.

This could be the last time Ireland will have a vote on Irish sovereignty in any meaningful sense. It deserves proper analysis, not scaremongering. And as of yet, there is nothing in the deal or the treaty changes that is of any benefit to Ireland. And a lot that could be extremely harmful. Merkel and Sarkozy are off tilting at windmills and hunting bogeymen - theres no solution at all on the horizon, and no compelling reason why we should indulge their fantasies further - both the ECB and Germany have clarified these treaty changes will not lead to any change of their views on the default/transfers/inflation conundrum: theyre still insisting "None of the above!"

screamer

We're the lapdog of Europe, no matter how cutsey and small we think we are, we have messed on the carpet, and a boot in the arse is coming..... Anyone who thinks we'll get a soft ride is delusional, France and Germany want their money back, and they'll take the food out of your mouth to get it, ably assisted by Enda Everything and Unhappy Gilmore.

bmaxi

I was interested in the remark of Noonan's about the Lisbon referendum having to be put to the Irish people twice. Sounds like this one might be put as many times as is necessary to pass it.

jimmycrackcorm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's been said many times there is no mechanism to leave the Euro and still remain within the EU.

Q: What happens if we have a referendum and say no then?
A: Sure everything will be grand, there'll be no repercussions.

jimmycrackcorm

bmaxi wrote: »

I was interested in the remark of Noonan's about the Lisbon referendum having to be put to the Irish people twice. Sounds like this one might be put as many times as is necessary to pass it.

People are free to say no as many times as the question is put. I don't understand the preoccupation with putting forward a referendum multiple times - didn't we have more than one chance at approving Divorce?

jank

Sand wrote: »

@Laois Man


Yeah - I agree with this. It was France/Germany which immediately began spinning furiously that any Greek referedumn would be a vote on Euro zone membership. All Noonan is doing here is doing their spinning for them.

The place to say "We want X, give it to us and we will get you Y" is in private negotiations. Noonan already got slapped about like a red headed stepchild with megaphone diplomacy back in the summer - remember how he was loudly proclaiming that he was going to ask the ECB to allow Ireland to default on bank debt?

Quite clearly the civil service or Merkel and Sarkozy have told Noonan to say this, but its something that could blow up in their faces quite quickly. There is quite simply no guarantee whatsoever that a referendum will pass here - the *best* chance of passing it is to be very clear on what the referedum is *not* about and to concentrate very clearly on what it *is* about and what the benefits are to Ireland.

This sort of stupid scaremongering is exactly the path *not* to take. People are sick of being terrorised, theyre in a sullen and defiant mood already. Support for the fecking crazies (Sinn Fein and the ULA) is rising. If people are backed into a corner, and offered only threats, they'll deliver a massive No vote just to regain some control over their own lives.

This could be the last time Ireland will have a vote on Irish sovereignty in any meaningful sense. It deserves proper analysis, not scaremongering. And as of yet, there is nothing in the deal or the treaty changes that is of any benefit to Ireland. And a lot that could be extremely harmful. Merkel and Sarkozy are off tilting at windmills and hunting bogeymen - theres no solution at all on the horizon, and no compelling reason why we should indulge their fantasies further - both the ECB and Germany have clarified these treaty changes will not lead to any change of their views on the default/transfers/inflation conundrum: theyre still insisting "None of the above!"

That may be all well in theory but the layman on the street will only look at the headlines and make up his own mind. They are not going to read in detail the whole text of the latest treaty. So its much easier to "bribe" us with euros.

I think a massive no vote is on the horizon anyway.

SuperMacs

If it does go to a referendum, then the NO camp will win.
They will come out with the usual bullcrap like last time about abortion, Euro-army and other FUD.
Confuse the crap out of the voters and scare them into voting NO.

zenno

Laois_Man wrote: »

There is no mechanism to be kicked out of the Euro just because you don't sign a new treaty!

^^ this poster is correct. so how many times do people need to be told this. we cannot be kicked out of the Euro if we vote no so wake up people. as was said before, the government will use fear to get you to vote yes but people have to snap out of it and vote what they believe to be right and best for Ireland. these idiots in government are just criminals in suits.

humanji

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

Thank god they weren't lying.

Red Alert

SuperMacs wrote: »

If it does go to a referendum, then the NO camp will win.
They will come out with the usual bullcrap like last time about abortion, Euro-army and other FUD.
Confuse the crap out of the voters and scare them into voting NO.

Some people have no interest in abortion, Euro-armies or the like and just disagree with the point being put.

Scofflaw

There is no mechanism to be kicked out of the Euro just because you don't sign a new treaty!

I fully appreciate that it's necessary for anyone who wants a No vote to repeat this at every opportunity, but while it's legally true, it's also somewhat meaningless, because what's on the table looks like it will be a take-it-or-leave-it decision on greater integration for stability. It's not an EU treaty (due to the UK's veto), so it's a new multilateral arrangement - we cannot derail it by voting No.

If that's what's on offer, then the choice is not between staying in the euro and being kicked out of the euro. The choice is between being in the new 'stability zone' or remaining in what is then in effect the 'outer eurozone'.

Whether that's a problem depends on how many other countries are in the 'outer euro'. If it's few, or even just us (and maybe Greece, but they're under troika management for the next 20-30 years, so they don't count), then I think we're going to have market problems.

The markets, as far as I can see, will see us as (a) subject to less discipline than the stability zone members; and (b) in an ambivalent position. For both those reasons I think the rates for Irish borrowing will be subject to upward pressure in a way that they wouldn't be inside the stability zone - and we have a huge debt load. Because we're still in the eurozone, we'll have limited fiscal instruments to help defend ourselves against such pressure. If our debt dynamics get too bad, we could be forced out of the markets again, and back into troika management under a new bailout.

So I think that remaining in the euro but outside the new stability arrangements will prove to be something that's only temporarily possible - we'll be forced to choose one way or the other by market pressure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Raskolnikov

Laois_Man wrote: »

There is no mechanism to be kicked out of the Euro just because you don't sign a new treaty!

Agreed, it doesn't mean that the threat won't be used by the government to influence a referendum.

wiseguy

This is just incredible, do the government (and Merkozy) really think that the Irish people would accept scaremongering and blackmail? They are insane, I voted yes to every EU referenda but this time it will be a solid NO if its presented in this manner.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/12/14/a-yes-or-no-referendum-on-euro-membership/

The truth is that, whether people like it or not, the debate about this referendum will have many parallels with the Lisbon Treaty debate. It wasn’t true that voting no on Lisbon meant leaving the EU. But it was true that the rest of the EU could have decided to form some new agreement, something which would have required a complex legal and political process.

Similarly, there is simply is no expulsion route from the euro. If Ireland voted down the new intergovernmental treaty but the government wished us to stay in the euro, then there is nothing that could be done to eject Ireland from what is legally a fixed and irrevocable currency union.

It is possible for other countries to move on after an Irish No vote to set up their own currency union. However, this would require them to leave the euro, which would very likely involve them leaving the EU. Legally and economically, such an approach would be hugely difficult for the EU, certainly more difficult than going on to apply the Lisbon changes to some inner core EU.

Well there you have it, vote NO and let Germany leave the euro, the currency then devalues helping Ireland and pretty much every other euro state, while Germany goes back to stagnation under a strong currency and lose all the benefits that the euro provided them. Euro crisis solved once Germany is out.


I will not be blackmailed! :mad:

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

This is just incredible, do the government (and Merkozy) really think that the Irish people would accept scaremongering and blackmail? They are insane, I voted yes to every EU referenda but this time it will be a solid NO if its presented in this manner.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/12/14/a-yes-or-no-referendum-on-euro-membership/



Well there you have it, vote NO and let Germany leave the euro, the currency then devalues helping Ireland and pretty much every other euro state, while Germany goes back to stagnation under a strong currency and lose all the benefits that the euro provided them. Euro crisis solved once Germany is out.


I will not be blackmailed! :mad:

It's not going to happen that way, though. There's no need for them to dissolve the euro, or for them to leave it. The euro will continue to exist - we'll just be a semi-detached and ambivalent member of it - but not for long, because the situation isn't stable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

I'm not going to be intimidated by scaremongering either. If this 'agreement' says anything about anything other than fiscal prudence (e.g. corporate tax rates or a Tobin tax) I'm going to be voting NO in any referendum. That includes the first referendum, the next re-run because the establishment doesn't like the result, etc. etc.

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not going to happen that way, though. There's no need for them to dissolve the euro, or for them to leave it. The euro will continue to exist

And we will continue to use it as per existing treaties we signed that can not be undone.

Scofflaw wrote: »

we'll just be a semi-detached and ambivalent member of it - but not for long, because the situation isn't stable.

Like all those other countries that use the euro but did not signup to any treaties? Except we did and for us nothing changes, not our relationship with ECB for that matter nor existing bailout.

If anything not being subject to financial transaction tax and giving up corporate taxation would make ireland more competitive in a new totalitarian europe from which businesses will start escaping.

Scofflaw wrote: »

not for long, because the situation isn't stable.

Is that a threat? more scaremongering please :rolleyes:

Provided we honor existing treaties, which we are, there is absolutely nothing all the other members following Merkozys whip can do to harm this country. And any attempts to do so would result in the whole of euro and EU falling appart, since a europe based on blackmail and bullying is not what we and others signed up to.

It is interesting how some are resorting to scaremongering and negative tactics used during Lisbon by the NO side.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

And we will continue to use it as per existing treaties we signed that can not be undone.

Sure - that won't change the fact that the situation will have changed.

wiseguy wrote: »

Like all those other countries that use the euro but did not signup to any treaties? Except we did and for us nothing changes, not our relationship with ECB for that matter nor existing bailout.

Yes, we stay exactly where we are, while the landscape shifts.

wiseguy wrote: »

If anything not being subject to financial transaction tax and giving up corporate taxation would make ireland more competitive in a new totalitarian europe from which businesses will start escaping.

Er, right. I see your position is based on a completely rational appraisal of the situation.

wiseguy wrote: »

Is that a threat? more scaremongering please :rolleyes:

Provided we honor existing treaties, which we are, there is absolutely nothing all the other members following Merkozys whip can do to harm this country. And any attempts to do so would result in the whole of euro and EU falling appart, since a europe based on blackmail and bullying is not what we and others signed up to.

It is interesting how some are resorting to scaremongering and negative tactics used during Lisbon by the NO side.

And it's interesting how it seems to be necessary, as before, to pretend that there is absolutely no downside at all involved in voting No.

Let's be clear here - this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one. We don't stop it by voting No. That means whether you vote No or Yes, the status quo is not going to be maintained. There is no point pretending everything will be the same as it is now as long as you vote No, because it won't be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Given as Scofflaw has stated, this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one then as the Crotty basis for a referendum only holds for EU treaties. Normal international ones that the Constitution does allow the Government to sign. Then there will be no referendum on this?

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - that won't change the fact that the situation will have changed.

Changed for those who accept new "treaty" same for us, Ireland and the other states would still be required to follow EU treaties they signed up to.
If other countries want to get together and mulilaterally sign up to all sorts of stuff, thats their choice, has no affect on us since when it comes to Ireland those countries have to continue to follow the treaty they signed up to.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, we stay exactly where we are, while the landscape shifts.

So? Are you afraid we will be "left out" out of an agreement that has no positive but only negative results for Ireland.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it's interesting how it seems to be necessary, as before, to pretend that there is absolutely no downside at all involved in voting No.
....
There is no point pretending everything will be the same as it is now as long as you vote No, because it won't be.

What are the downsides to voting NO @Scofflaw, do enlighten us here.

Stop making vague threats and references and tell us of this appocalypse that would happen if we vote no.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's be clear here - this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one. We don't stop it by voting No. That means whether you vote No or Yes, the status quo is not going to be maintained.

So it doesnt matter what way we vote since it be steamrolled thru one way or another, is that the Europe you envisaged? whatever happend to this concept called "democracy"?

Laois_Man

wiseguy wrote: »

What are the downsides to voting NO @Scofflaw, do enlighten us here.

Stop making vague threats and references and tell us of this appocalypse that would happen if we vote no.

In fairness to Scofflaw, if I may speak on his behalf, on post #27, he did say what he thinks would happen if we're outside of this club...

Scofflaw wrote: »

The markets, as far as I can see, will see us as (a) subject to less discipline than the stability zone members; and (b) in an ambivalent position. For both those reasons I think the rates for Irish borrowing will be subject to upward pressure in a way that they wouldn't be inside the stability zone - and we have a huge debt load. Because we're still in the eurozone, we'll have limited fiscal instruments to help defend ourselves against such pressure. If our debt dynamics get too bad, we could be forced out of the markets again, and back into troika management under a new bailout.

So I think that remaining in the euro but outside the new stability arrangements will prove to be something that's only temporarily possible - we'll be forced to choose one way or the other by market pressure.

I don't agree with this however. The markets have already shown it doesn't have any regard for this deal that's in the offering and doesn't regard this "We won't break the rules THIS time" promise as any kind of "subject to discipline".

wiseguy

@Laois_Man

Whether we vote NO or YES the deficit will have to be closed as per plans, so whether we remain in euro under existing treaties (NO) or opt into a new agreement (YES). The path that the country has to take to fix its deficit remains them same.

This "agreement" does nothing to solve the current crisis, and will do nothing to fix any future ones. Ill put it this way, if this was implemented in 90s would we still find ourselves where we are? The answer would be YES, after all it was Germany who broke the Stability pact first while Ireland stayed within the rules despite the economy experiencing a bubble.

Debt to GDP ratios do nothing to prevent bubbles.
Handing over corporation does not create more jobs here if anything it will cripple the economy.
Submitting to financial transaction tax puts 30,000 jobs at risk in IFSC directly, and many multiples more indirectly as these would shift to London.
We had a a tax on property transactions, if anything it made the outcome for this country worse not better, as the once off revenue from this was used to buy votes and bribe public/welfare sectors.


There can only be the folowing outcomes

YES
* country gets better because of X,Y,Z
* country gets worse because of X,Y,Z
* nothing changes

NO
* country gets better because of X,Y,Z
* country gets worse because of X,Y,Z
* nothing changes

The minister astonishingly {due to lack of detail!} came out and told us
[PHP]if( $voteNO == true ){ die('disaster as we leave euro!' }[/PHP]

But we can not be kicked out of the euro nor EU, so its a pile of bull**** and scaremongering

---

now regarding Scofflaws points

subject to less discipline than the stability zone members

HAHAHA yeh the market knows that the Stability Pact was a load of bull and have been sceptical of proposals made, saying "this time we really really mean it" changes nothing

For both those reasons I think the rates for Irish borrowing will be subject to upward pressure in a way that they wouldn't be inside the stability zone - and we have a huge debt load

Do tell us Scofflaw was it not one of the reasons we spent 60 odd billions on bank (mostly borrowed!) was to prevent "contagion" yet here we are with the whole of Europe sick and the people picking up the bill for the banks (several billion in interest a year) on top of the public+welfare bill which is out whack.

Anyways as Scofflaw likes to remind us we are not going back to the markets anytime soon, and by the time we do our deficit will be closed.

I do not see why i should vote YES based on these "scaremongering" reasons alone, that dont hold up when put under closer scrutiny.

View

wiseguy wrote: »

So? Are you afraid we will be "left out" out of an agreement that has no positive but only negative results for Ireland.

Just out of curiousity - how do you know at this stage whether the above will be the case?

Laois_Man

wiseguy wrote: »

@Laois_Man

I'm not sure why you directed all that at me - I'm on the same side as you and I have made many of the points you have!

wiseguy

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'm not sure why you directed all that at me - I'm on the same side as you and I have made many of the points you have!

I know I know

View wrote: »

Just out of curiousity - how do you know at this stage whether the above will be the case?

You think no jobs would be lost when handover our corporate tax and financial transaction tax comes in pushing IFSC jobs towards London and US?

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

Given as Scofflaw has stated, this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one then as the Crotty basis for a referendum only holds for EU treaties. Normal international ones that the Constitution does allow the Government to sign. Then there will be no referendum on this?

That's an interesting question - if Crotty is about sovereignty, which is my reading of the judgement, then the government's agreement to any form of treaty which results in constraints on the exercise of Irish sovereignty requires the people's assent at referendum, whether they are EU treaties or not.

But nobody has ever challenged a non-EU treaty on the basis of Crotty as far as I can see, and the popular expectation seems to be, as you say, that Crotty applies only to EU treaties.

Since that isn't actually the case, this one, even if intergovernmental rather than EU (something I'm frankly not very happy about), might require a referendum depending on what's in it.

If it's just a tightening up of the S&G rules, it shouldn't require any referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

Changed for those who accept new "treaty" same for us, Ireland and the other states would still be required to follow EU treaties they signed up to.
If other countries want to get together and mulilaterally sign up to all sorts of stuff, thats their choice, has no affect on us since when it comes to Ireland those countries have to continue to follow the treaty they signed up to.

Yes and no. Currently we're a member of the euro on exactly the same footing as everyone else. The situation will change for the others, but by virtue of the fact that we're no longer on the same footing as the others, it also changes for us.

wiseguy wrote: »

So? Are you afraid we will be "left out" out of an agreement that has no positive but only negative results for Ireland.

I don't see it as having only negatives.

wiseguy wrote: »

What are the downsides to voting NO @Scofflaw, do enlighten us here.

Stop making vague threats and references and tell us of this appocalypse that would happen if we vote no.

See my longer post, as Laois Man says.

wiseguy wrote: »

Let's be clear here - this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one. We don't stop it by voting No. That means whether you vote No or Yes, the status quo is not going to be maintained.

So it doesnt matter what way we vote since it be steamrolled thru one way or another, is that the Europe you envisaged? whatever happend to this concept called "democracy"?

Your complaint is unrelated to democracy - at no point does democracy give you the right to vote to stop other countries agreeing anything they like between themselves. The legal constraints of the EU give us that ability when it comes to EU treaties, but the moment you step outside that framework, they disappear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dunphy3

Laois_Man wrote: »

My worry is that it is infact you who's reading it the wrong way!
I don't think the EU will be in the slightest bit worried if our referendum asked the question "Stay in the Euro: Yes, No". They KNOW that a referendum with that question would be EASILY passed here without them even having to bribe us - because leaving the Euro would be so so dangerous for OURSELVES!

On the other hand, I can't equate in my own mind how if we need a referendum to allow our tax policies to be dictated by Europe, how does asking the above question legally result in this particular change to the Constitution when the ballot paper doesn't actually seek that specific permission.



There is no mechanism to be kicked out of the Euro just because you don't sign a new treaty!





Do you think Merkel/Sarcozy will come up with text to the treaty that's in any way disadvantageous to Germany/France? Like ****e they will!!

hav just heard confermation of what i suspected on the radio ,ie in 2015 we willhave our borrowings down and will owe what italy now owes.

meglome

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

opinionated3 wrote: »

Ha ha...thought the exact same thing myself. Will be voting no.

The next time some says this they should have to repeat the 21 items on this list 1000 times.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the list:

1. The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84
2. Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack
3. We would lose our neutrality
4. It would create a European superstate
5. Abortion would be made legal
6. Gay marriage would be made legal
7. Euthanasia would be made legal
8. The death penalty would be made legal
9. The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on
10. Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
11. During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
12. Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
13. The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
14. We would lose the right to referendums
15. Our constitution would be null and void
16. Healthcare and education would be privatised
17. We would be forced to increase military spending
18. The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
19. We would lose our veto in all areas
20. A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
21. Tony Blair would become the EU president

Now that two years have passed and none of those things have happened I think we can all agree they were lies. So that's a list of "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen that didn't.

The whole Lisbon campaign was a joke but the No side lying was far worse. And let's not pretend voting No is some point of principle for you, my guess is you voted No all along.

sensibleken

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

Lisbon made loads of jobs. theres the EU army, abortionist, Euthanasiathist etc They only pay €1.84 an hour but a jobs a job

View

wiseguy wrote: »

You think no jobs would be lost when handover our corporate tax and financial transaction tax comes in pushing IFSC jobs towards London and US?

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

Laois_Man

View wrote: »

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

In the stated objectives of what they would like the treaty to look like, there was a desire for a move towards a Common economic policy - a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax.

You also need to turn on the news and listen to David Cameron's reasons for running a mile from this!

SeanW

View wrote: »

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

There's been some strong indication that a transactions tax will be in it, i.e. it was in the Treaty that the U.K and Hungary vetoed. Only a fool would assume that a new Eurozone pact would not have something like that. It's also safe to assume the French will want to have something in there about common Corporation Tax. That's been a hobby horse of theres for a long time and they've made it clear they're not going to take no for an answer!

sensibleken

Laois_Man wrote: »

In the stated objectives of what they would like the treaty to look like, there was a desire for a move towards a Common economic policy - a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax.

You also need to turn on the news and listen to David Cameron's reasons for running a mile from this!

he ran on day one. the negotiations hadnt even started then. Of what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight

Laois_Man

sensibleken wrote: »

he ran on day one. the negotiations hadnt even started then. Of what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight

Last week didn't change that much from October's six-pack of rules which the UK agreed to. Yes there is a new element concerning the average deficit over the cycle - But that's not what Cameron took a huff over! I do think there's a huge element of optics to satisfy the Euro-sceptics in the UK Conservative party, but when you refer to "what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight", I'm not sure what you mean considering Cameron has been talking about nothing else on the meeting other than the financial transactions tax and it's implications for the city of London!

sensibleken

Laois_Man wrote: »

Last week didn't change that much from October's six-pack of rules which the UK agreed to. Yes there is a new element concerning the average deficit over the cycle - But that's not what Cameron took a huff over! I do think there's a huge element of optics to satisfy the Euro-sceptics in the UK Conservative party, but when you refer to "what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight", I'm not sure what you mean considering Cameron has been talking about nothing else on the meeting other than the financial transactions tax and it's implications for the city of London!

I mean in the agreement. granted we dont have the nuts and bolts but what was announced was only regarding bugetry oversight.