Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?
Options
Comments
-
-
Jeff the Yank wrote: »You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?
Yes really. As per our laws the government of the day called a second vote, after receiving guarantees on our concerns. I got the choice a second time to Vote Yes, No or not vote at all.
I didn't vote in the first one as I didn't read up on the contents, by the second one I was happy to vote yes, which I did. Where's the force in that?Jeff the Yank wrote: »As for your other enlightened responses please look up Keynesian economics.
Keynesian economics suggest you can borrow one third of all government spending and spend a lot more money on generating growth. Really?Jeff the Yank wrote: »I'll just leave you with a thought. The Euro is not a safety net. Its a lead weight weighing us down in the financial ocean. Eventually we wont be able to tread water anymore.
I see, so a resource poor, small country like Ireland will have a great time own it's on will it? Really? When have we ever been able to do that?Jeff the Yank wrote: »I believe he makes a point of Iceland because they were the only country that let their banks collapse. Ireland's collapse and Iceland's were very similar other than Ireland took the completely idiotic tact of bailing out its banks with money it did not have and the obvious difference that Iceland still had control of its own economic destiny. By being able to devalue its own currency it has an automatic release valve for improving exports and creating jobs. We do not.
Yes a country which could let it's banks collapse. A country that had no hope of supporting it's banks. A country who's own finance minister says that they are not an example to follow. A country that doesn't need to import as much as we do. I could go on.Jeff the Yank wrote: »The main point stands. Ireland cannot devalue its currency and Germany has no interest in doing anything that doesn't help Germany. The banks simply want the people to pay off all their bad loans and investments and apparently have most of the world leaders either in their back pockets or scared enough to do their bidding. The entire idea of investment risk has been superseded by social financing of Big Banking.
Right forgive me if I don't buy into your conspiracy. And as if devaluing your currency is the only way to manage an economy.Jeff the Yank wrote: »The Markets and Banks should not be running the country. The People of Ireland should be..
Have the 'people of Ireland' got the money?Jeff the Yank wrote: »This other thought is my own. Ireland does not need to trap itself into a treaty with the EU to fix the poor regulation of its banking and investment industry. It also doesn't need to trap itself into a EU treaty that in effect gives more power to the un-elected folks that make up the power structure of the EU. Ireland could very easily create its own laws dictating how to better manage a strong economy and police the out of control nature of Big Banking and the Markets.
We have already signed up to most of the measures in this Fiscal compact in previous EU treaties. And the same way we can vote in this Fiscal compact we can vote it out.
As I said crap.
And btw if you can't see what's wrong with an economist doing what is a slanted opinion piece lacking figures then perhaps I shouldn't bother.0 -
No need for repeated usage of crap. Unparliamentary language I believe when Albert used it!
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Actually, there is no mechanism for a country to leave the Eurozone without also leaving the EU. Nor, I imagine, will there ever be.RandomName2 wrote: »Hold on,
We can agree to enter the fiscal compact (provided it comes into force) at any time in the future, but we cannot apparently leave it if we sign (even if we leave the Euro!)
Actually it doesn't; it only inserts a requirement for balanced budget into the constitution. In fact, voting "yes" on the 30th Amendment Bill only inserts the following into the constitution.The Fiscal Compact would install a penalisation system into the national constitution (or equivalent level). The manner in which this system is implemented is up to the member state, but it must fit a manner as suggested by the Commission.Article 29.4:
10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.
This allows for the implementation of the following into law, preferably into the constitution... but nothing forcing us to do that. It is up to our government.(a)the budgetary position of the general government of a Contracting Party shall be balanced or in surplus;
(b) the rule under point (a) shall be deemed to be respected if the annual structural balance of the general government is at its country-specific medium-term objective, as defined in the revised Stability and Growth Pact, with a lower limit of a structural deficit of 0,5 % of the gross domestic product at market prices. The Contracting Parties shall ensure rapid convergence towards their respective medium-term objective. The time-frame for such convergence will be proposed by the European Commission taking into consideration country-specific sustainability risks. Progress towards, and respect of, the medium-term objective shall be evaluated on the basis of an overall assessment with the structural balance as a reference, including an analysis of expenditure net of discretionary revenue measures, in line with the revised Stability and Growth Pact;
(c) the Contracting Parties may temporarily deviate from their respective medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it only in exceptional circumstances, as defined in point (b) of paragraph 3;
(d) where the ratio of the general government debt to gross domestic product at market prices is significantly below 60 % and where risks in terms of long-term sustainability of public finances are low, the lower limit of the medium-term objective specified under point (b) can reach a structural deficit of at most 1,0 % of the gross domestic product at market prices;
(e) in the event of significant observed deviations from the medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it, a correction mechanism shall be triggered automatically. The mechanism shall include the obligation of the Contracting Party concerned to implement measures to correct the deviations over a defined period of time.
The Commission meanwhile has seemingly outlined separate ideas to
"require eurozone countries to present their draft budgets at the same time each year. The Commission could then issue an opinion on them, if necessary, and ask governments to revise them in line with their eurozone obligations.
The second would enhance surveillance for eurozone countries being supported by financial assistance or that are threatened by serious financial instability"
Whole thing is a bit creepy imo. :pac:
Nonsense... the only thing that the compact says is that Eurozone countries will meet twice a year to discuss Euro matters and that non EZ members can attend once a year.0 -
Jeff the Yank wrote: »You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?
I'm getting fairly sick of this to be honest. We have never voted on the same referendum twice and certainly have never been "forced" to do so.
In 2008 we voted on this:1- Article 29 of the Constitution is hereby amended as follows:(a) subsections 9° and 11° of section 4 of both the Irish text
and the English text shall be repealed;
(b) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 1 of
the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 10° of
section 4 of the Irish text;
(c) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 2 of
the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 10° of
section 4 of the English text; and
(d) subsection 10° of section 4 of both texts shall be numbered
subsection 9°.
In 2009 we voted on this:1.—(1) Article 29 of the Constitution is hereby amended as
follows:(a) in subsection 3° of section 4 of the Irish text—(i) the words “den Chomhphobal Eorpach do Ghual(b) in subsection 3° of section 4 of the English text—
agus Cruach (do bunuigheadh le Connradh do
sı´nigheadh i bPa´ ras an 18adh la´ d’Aibrea´ n, 1951), de
Chomhphobal Eacnamaı´ochta na hEorpa (do
bunuigheadh le Connradh do sı´nigheadh insan
Ro´ imh an 25adh la´ de Mha´ rta, 1957) agus”, and
(ii) the second sentence,
shall be repealed,(i) the words “the European Coal and Steel Community(c) subsections 4°, 5°, 6°, 7°, 8°, 9°, 10° and 11° of section 4 of
(established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th
day of April, 1951), the European Economic
Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome
on the 25th day of March, 1957) and”, and
(ii) the second sentence,
shall be repealed,
both the Irish text and the English text shall be repealed,
Citation.
(d) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 1 of
the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 3° of
section 4 of the Irish text,
(e) the subsections, the texts of which are set out in Part 2 of
the Schedule, shall be inserted after subsection 3° of
section 4 of the English text.
Can we stop this now? I realise it has only been 3 years but it's time someone said enough is enough about this "re-run" referendum nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well it sure as hell didn't come from ordinary people's deposits.Scofflaw wrote:There doesn't ever seem to have been much German (or even eurozone) money in the Irish domestic banks, as far as can be seen from their balance sheets.
This is a summary of the balance sheets of the Irish domestic banking sector - that is, all the banks with any appreciable business in Ireland:
Year|Total Liabilities|Deposits from Irish Residents|Irish Bank Deposits|Irish Govt Deposits|Irish Private Sector Deposits|Euro Area Deposits|Rest of World Deposits|Irish Resident Bonds|Euro Area Bonds|Rest of World Bonds|Total Bonds|Resident Capital & Reserves|Non-Resident Capital & Reserves|ECB Borrowings|Resident Other|Non-Resident Other
2003|262|122|21|2|98|14|66|4|1|18|23|15|4|5|8|7
2004|346|156|41|2|112|17|84|7|3|32|43|18|5|6|9|8
2005|469|194|55|2|136|30|113|12|9|53|74|21|9|9|11|8
2006|606|248|88|3|157|34|135|22|12|76|110|25|10|8|15|21
2007|697|253|84|3|166|35|193|29|15|77|121|30|12|19|15|20
2008|801|296|126|3|167|38|233|27|16|57|100|28|13|45|26|22
2009|798|311|131|3|176|26|202|39|12|47|98|41|12|58|35|14
2010|742|292|132|3|157|16|121|33|10|21|64|64|8|95|69|13
2011|634|243|99|2|141|85|89|30|8|14|13|2|72|59|19|0
All amounts are in billions. Source is the aggregate balance sheet data from the Central Bank. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Jeff the Yank wrote: »You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?
Neither forced nor a re-run, but enough has been said by other posters.Jeff the Yank wrote: »I'll just leave you with a thought. The Euro is not a safety net. Its a lead weight weighing us down in the financial ocean. Eventually we wont be able to tread water anymore...
...By being able to devalue its own currency it has an automatic release valve for improving exports and creating jobs. We do not.
This whole "go back to the punt and devalue the currency" idea would be great if we could survive in a vacuum, but we can't. The prices of so many things would skyrocket. Oil, cars, food, electronics, international travel etc. How are we supposed to buy all that stuff if our money isn't worth squat? I prefer having all those things to the apparent "sovereignty" we keep being told we're losing to Europe.Jeff the Yank wrote: »This other thought is my own. Ireland does not need to trap itself into a treaty with the EU to fix the poor regulation of its banking and investment industry. It also doesn't need to trap itself into a EU treaty that in effect gives more power to the un-elected folks that make up the power structure of the EU. Ireland could very easily create its own laws dictating how to better manage a strong economy and police the out of control nature of Big Banking and the Markets.
Well the thing about the idea of "we could just do this ourselves" works in theory, but recent history shows we're pretty bad at it. This thought is also my own. Allow me to make an analogy.
When I was studying for my Leaving Cert, I kept getting distracted because I had a laptop in my room and instead of studying, I just spent ages on Facebook and Youtube and whatever other websites I went to. Now every day I would go up and say "ok, this time I'm not going to turn on the laptop, I'm just going to study". Pretty consistently that became "well I'll only look for a minute" and it all went down from there. The only solution was to have someone else step in and take the whole thing away. Like with Ireland, it would have been great if I could sort it out on my own and it wasn't actually that hard to do in theory but I can just as easily imagine another government saying to themselves "well this time it will be different".
It's more powerful when you have someone else actually keeping you following the rules and who can step in and tell you when to stop.0 -
Well the thing about the idea of "we could just do this ourselves" works in theory, but recent history shows we're pretty bad at it. This thought is also my own. Allow me to make an analogy.
When I was studying for my Leaving Cert, I kept getting distracted because I had a laptop in my room and instead of studying, I just spent ages on Facebook and Youtube and whatever other websites I went to. Now every day I would go up and say "ok, this time I'm not going to turn on the laptop, I'm just going to study". Pretty consistently that became "well I'll only look for a minute" and it all went down from there. The only solution was to have someone else step in and take the whole thing away. Like with Ireland, it would have been great if I could sort it out on my own and it wasn't actually that hard to do in theory but I can just as easily imagine another government saying to themselves "well this time it will be different".
It's more powerful when you have someone else actually keeping you following the rules and who can step in and tell you when to stop.
You speak very eloquently about how we might behave in the future, using the past as an example, but using the same past as our only reference point, where is it proven that the larger member states will suddenly start abiding by the rules?0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »You speak very eloquently about how we might behave in the future, using the past as an example, but using the same past as our only reference point, where is it proven that the larger member states will suddenly start abiding by the rules?
No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.
cordially,
Scofflaw
We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.0 -
Advertisement
-
We have had a considerable amount of jobs created as of late and I heard the new head of intel in Europe recently say that Irish integration and cooperation with Europe is only a positive factor. Multinationals would likely not consider ireland if we were not in the Eurozone.Happyman42 wrote: »No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.
cordially,
Scofflaw
We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »
We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.Scofflaw wrote:No-one can 'prove' the future - but one can point out that the Treaty changes the rules to make it much harder for the larger member states to avoid sanctions.
Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.
The question of voting mechanisms isn't really "dealing with theories and options". The voting mechanisms for sanctioning breaches of the fiscal limits are changed by the Treaty. The changes make it harder for anyone to avoid sanctions, because they change the system from one where a majority has to support sanctions to one where a majority would have to oppose them.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The question of voting mechanisms isn't really "dealing with theories and options". The voting mechanisms for sanctioning breaches of the fiscal limits are changed by the Treaty. The changes make it harder for anyone to avoid sanctions, because they change the system from one where a majority has to support sanctions to one where a majority would have to oppose them.
cordially,
Scofflaw
You keep saying the future will be different, we have been listening to that mantra since the birth of the EEC. There are those who think that the future will not be different and want to change that.0 -
Could you seriously say that Ireland is the same country it was before 1973? I was recently having this conversation with someone who queried what benefits Ireland has gained from EU membership. I would remind anyone of the mess this country was in prior to 1973Happyman42 wrote: »The question of voting mechanisms isn't really "dealing with theories and options". The voting mechanisms for sanctioning breaches of the fiscal limits are changed by the Treaty. The changes make it harder for anyone to avoid sanctions, because they change the system from one where a majority has to support sanctions to one where a majority would have to oppose them.
cordially,
Scofflaw
You keep saying the future will be different, we have been listening to that mantra since the birth of the EEC. There are those who think that the future will not be different and want to change that.0 -
That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.FreudianSlippers wrote: »Could you seriously say that Ireland is the same country it was before 1973? I was recently having this conversation with someone who queried what benefits Ireland has gained from EU membership. I would remind anyone of the mess this country was in prior to 1973
I think what was allowed to happen in the case of Dell is pertinent to how Europe works, they got paid x amount of money by the EU to re-locate in Poland from Ireland
'That's the market, that's the way it works' say the champions of this policy, economists and corporate people chiefly.
But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators. Poland (funnily enough the current darling performer of the EU) will get shafted in due course too, that is the moneymaking cycle that is the corporate model, they'll move on elsewhere.
The EU is an entity where the balance is tilted to favour the mercenary excesses of capitalism. There is no consideration for human beings and their lives, hell rub it up them if the time has come for the 'real' people of Europe to tell them to get lost.
I said earlier that you can't base your judgement on solely economic reasons because politics has a habit of changing the goalposts. The 'real' people can make a political decision here and to be honest, so far, I can't see how we will be any worse off.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Could you seriously say that Ireland is the same country it was before 1973? I was recently having this conversation with someone who queried what benefits Ireland has gained from EU membership. I would remind anyone of the mess this country was in prior to 1973
It's kinda aggravating talking to someone who was around in the 1950s about recessions. They just laugh at you. "Recession? I didn't have any bloody shoes!"0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »
Can we stop this now? I realise it has only been 3 years but it's time someone said enough is enough about this "re-run" referendum nonsense.
I voted on the Lisbon referendum
the Lisbon referendum was voted on by me
See. Totally different.
I can see that this is going to be like your "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND" style argument... :pac:0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Multinationals would likely not consider ireland if we were not in the Eurozone.
That is quite possible, but it would also largely depend on other factors. It is also somewhat tangential to discussion. On topic, I don't personally put much stock in the attraction posed to multinationals by the wishy washy sense of europhile/ europhobic sentiment gained from the results of a referendum.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
Well it's more that the Yes side have no imagination on their side and are accused of fear mongering if they tell the truth.But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators.
There is a point there. My feeling is that the current obsession with the "smart economy" is somewhat misled. I'm more interested in the "unmovable economy" - skills that can't be outsourced to a cheaper location. When you can outsource your car service to China I'll reconsider; until then, a mechanics skills are economically valuable, no matter what the ICT fans say.
We may run into a situation where economic tariffs will have to be reinstated in order to protect our economies from being outsourced en masse.I said earlier that you can't base your judgement on solely economic reasons because politics has a habit of changing the goalposts. The 'real' people can make a political decision here and to be honest, so far, I can't see how we will be any worse off.
I can but you are free to differ in your opinion. I'm beginning to believe beeftotheheels who was for moving the referendum to September. First of all because of the French election and secondly because if Greece fails in the summer, it will (perhaps) give us all an idea of how we can be worse off.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
With this Treaty the Yes side are saying this will lead to stricter budget controls and it should if the political will is there. The No side seem to be saying we are grand as we are and voting yes will mean more austerity which, from what I've read, doesn't seem to be the case.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Well it's more that the Yes side have no imagination on their side and are accused of fear mongering if they tell the truth.
Ah, to be fair, both sides are pretty crap and fear-mongering with their respective messages. No side only tends to be more "imaginative" when Coir raise their heads.There is a point there. My feeling is that the current obsession with the "smart economy" is somewhat misled. I'm more interested in the "unmovable economy" - skills that can't be outsourced to a cheaper location. When you can outsource your car service to China I'll reconsider; until then, a mechanics skills are economically valuable, no matter what the ICT fans say.
Pretty trueWe may run into a situation where economic tariffs will have to be reinstated in order to protect our economies from being outsourced en masse.
Surely the whole point of the EU is that a country cannot have economic tariffs to protect outsourcing (competition)?I can but you are free to differ in your opinion. I'm beginning to believe beeftotheheels who was for moving the referendum to September. First of all because of the French election and secondly because if Greece fails in the summer, it will (perhaps) give us all an idea of how we can be worse off.
FFS moving it is the only sensible idea. Takes the onus off us for one thing. A bit late in the day, perhaps, but with due cause at least.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »No side only tends to be more "imaginative" when Coir raise their heads.
Argh! (runs and hides)...Surely the whole point of the EU is that a country cannot have economic tariffs to protect outsourcing (competition)?
Sorry, I meant around the EU rather than in one particular country. Maybe some games could be played with carbon tariffs - ie: if you make your product using a dirty energy source like coal (like, er, China) then you pay more than if you make it using, I dunno, gas or nuclear. It's rigged of course but it looks neutral at first glanceFFS moving it is the only sensible idea. Takes the onus off us for one ting. A bit late in the day, perhaps, but with due cause at least.
I expected the whole "growth pact" tack on to be sorted at this stage. Now it's all looking a bit uncertain. How politically possible it is to go moving referenda at the last minute is another thing.
Greece has pretty much confirmed it can't form a coalition with anti-bailout DL and the polls show Syriza rising in popularity so an election rerun looks inevitable. The Guardian business blog has a picture of Lord Voldemort on it for some reason!
Edit: Ah yes, related to the JP Morgan thing, not the EU thing. Ireland came out looking quite well after the EU numbers this afternoon...0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »We are dealing with theories and options. The choice the No and Yes sides have to make are all based on suppositions. Everybody is guessing and have been for every Euro Referendum there has been.
Remember the promise of 'Jobs' around Lisbon? That was the Yes side, supposing at best and lying at worst, depends which way you look at it. We can only inform ourselves so much, there is no wrong or right answer in the Ref. just make the best choice you can based on what you 'suppose might happen' citizens, coz that's all anyone is doing.
Anyone who voted "Yes" to Lisbon because they believed the slogan "Yes for Jobs" is just as stupid as someone who is going to vote "No" this time around because they believe "No to Austerity" and "No to Household Charge and Water Charges". Actually, those who vote "No" this time round are stupider because we all should have learned not to listen to meaningles stupid slogans.
As for there being no wrong or right answer, that is also stupid. When we joined the EU in 1973, income per capita was 63% of the EU average, now despite all that has happened in the last few years, income per capita is well above the EU average. So the record shows that joining the EU has worked for Ireland so the message should be we want to stay at the heart of Europe.
Oh, and for those that doubt the influence of the EU, the income per capita gap over Iceland has widened since 1973 despite the fact that Iceland has natural resources and that according to the likes of the SF/ULA axis of ignorance it took the right options in dealing with its banks.0 -
With this Treaty the Yes side are saying this will lead to stricter budget controls and it should if the political will is there. The No side seem to be saying we are grand as we are and voting yes will mean more austerity which, from what I've read, doesn't seem to be the case.
There is the problem though.0 -
Anyone who voted "Yes" to Lisbon because they believed the slogan "Yes for Jobs" is just as stupid as someone who is going to vote "No" this time around because they believe "No to Austerity" and "No to Household Charge and Water Charges". Actually, those who vote "No" this time round are stupider because we all should have learned not to listen to meaningles stupid slogans.
As for there being no wrong or right answer, that is also stupid. When we joined the EU in 1973, income per capita was 63% of the EU average, now despite all that has happened in the last few years, income per capita is well above the EU average. So the record shows that joining the EU has worked for Ireland so the message should be we want to stay at the heart of Europe.
Oh, and for those that doubt the influence of the EU, the income per capita gap over Iceland has widened since 1973 despite the fact that Iceland has natural resources and that according to the likes of the SF/ULA axis of ignorance it took the right options in dealing with its banks.
The fact is though that those who govern us where the ones who had the slogans about jobs and the fear factor was played to it's limit.
Nobody is comparing now to pre '73. Europe is sick, that is plainly evident, to my mind the Fiscal Treaty is a scapegoat and is kicking fundemental change down the road.
Like Lisbon it will make precious little difference to the everyday except that the richer will stay rich and get even richer while the whole edifice goes down in flames around us at the expense of the poorer members and the poorer citizen. Like the growing number in Europe, I'm for sending these bureaucrats back to the table to look for another way of doing things. Saying No is just part of the way to do that. We are all members.0 -
You did not, I outlined clearly what you voted on: 2 separate constitutional amendments.RandomName2 wrote: »FreudianSlippers wrote: »
Can we stop this now? I realise it has only been 3 years but it's time someone said enough is enough about this "re-run" referendum nonsense.
I voted on the Lisbon referendum
the Lisbon referendum was voted on by me
See. Totally different.
I can see that this is going to be like your "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND" style argument... :pac:0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
What? The No side say that each referendum will produce an entirely different EU. The claim each time goes "the old EU was good for us, but the new EU created by this treaty will be totally different/this treaty will utterly change our relationship with the EU". Now I'd agree that in the senses claimed by the No side on these occasions that's rubbish, but for you to claim that not only has nothing changed, but that the No side are guardians of that truth is entirely laughable.
To highlight the farcical nature of your claim here, you even manage to refer to the EEC, which you are apparently claiming is exactly the same thing as the modern EU.Happyman42 wrote: »I think what was allowed to happen in the case of Dell is pertinent to how Europe works, they got paid x amount of money by the EU to re-locate in Poland from Ireland
'That's the market, that's the way it works' say the champions of this policy, economists and corporate people chiefly.
But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators. Poland (funnily enough the current darling performer of the EU) will get shafted in due course too, that is the moneymaking cycle that is the corporate model, they'll move on elsewhere.
The EU is an entity where the balance is tilted to favour the mercenary excesses of capitalism. There is no consideration for human beings and their lives, hell rub it up them if the time has come for the 'real' people of Europe to tell them to get lost.
I said earlier that you can't base your judgement on solely economic reasons because politics has a habit of changing the goalposts. The 'real' people can make a political decision here and to be honest, so far, I can't see how we will be any worse off.
You could start by basing your judgements on facts rather than the same misrepresentations the No side produce every time. Poland offered Dell a relocation grant, the EU approved it because it did not find it to be against the state aid rules. Contrary, then, to your claim that "the EU" moved Dell from Ireland to Poland to suit its capitalist agenda, the EU was involved only to make sure that the process already in motion was fair, and that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the Polish grant. I appreciate, though, that you're just repeating the same rubbish the No side said about the move back in 2009 - but it was rubbish then, and it's rubbish now. Some things don't change.
And I know that the demonstrably farcical nature of your first claim, and the demonstrable inaccuracy of the "facts" you use to support your second, isn't going to prevent you from coming to the same set of "conclusions" repeatedly, because they're not conclusions but prejudices.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »There is the problem though.
Indeed. Would you prefer automatic triggers?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »The EU is an entity where the balance is tilted to favour the mercenary excesses of capitalism.
Yet only yesterday the EU introduced laws to stop Mobile Phone companies fleecing consumers on roaming data charges. Prob a few crumbs for the proles, I guess.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who said that? Source please.What? The No side say that each referendum will produce an entirely different EU. The claim each time goes "the old EU was good for us, but the new EU created by this treaty will be totally different/this treaty will utterly change our relationship with the EU".Now I'd agree that in the senses claimed by the No side on these occasions that's rubbish, but for you to claim that not only has nothing changed, but that the No side are guardians of that truth is entirely laughable.
The only answer to that is, eh?To highlight the farcical nature of your claim here, you even manage to refer to the EEC, which you are apparently claiming is exactly the same thing as the modern EU.
To the people who get hammered most there is no real difference if it's the EEC, EU, LEGO, or MIB. Notwithstanding the fact, that I was using 'EEC' to refer to the beginings of the Union.:rolleyes:
Ha ha, 'that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the polish grant'!!!!!! Regardless of where the money came from you managed to miss the point. I suppose Dell weren't unduly influenced by the low wages In Lodz either? Does it remind you of the environment that Dell entered into Ireland at all??You could start by basing your judgements on facts rather than the same misrepresentations the No side produce every time. Poland offered Dell a relocation grant, the EU approved it because it did not find it to be against the state aid rules. Contrary, then, to your claim that "the EU" moved Dell from Ireland to Poland to suit its capitalist agenda, the EU was involved only to make sure that the process already in motion was fair, and that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the Polish grant.
It's only rubbish if you think there are only economic considerations, the 'real people' think different and hopefully will voice their opinions.I appreciate, though, that you're just repeating the same rubbish the No side said about the move back in 2009 - but it was rubbish then, and it's rubbish now. Some things don't change.And I know that the demonstrably farcical nature of your first claim, and the demonstrable inaccuracy of the "facts" you use to support your second, isn't going to prevent you from coming to the same set of "conclusions" repeatedly, because they're not conclusions but prejudices.
regards,
Scofflaw
Here's the cycle of spin you will hear again and again if we keep the same model:
'The European Commission said it could allow the government aid because the new factory will be established in insert name of suitably impoverished location here, which has an unusually low standard of living and high unemployment'
It will soon be Limericks turn to be given a brand spanking new factory and benevolent corporation again. We'll call it The Corpo Rape Cycle, (CRC) shall we? :rolleyes:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement