Yes vote a vote for "Stabiltiy"

crusher000

Well , what happened to this important vote of ours on Europe?. We were told that a yes vote would be a vote for "stability" oh ya they said jobs as well. Now we can't take every political campaign literally but is it time politicans are held accountable for what they promise in elections (they shouldn't be allowed to make unfounded promises on any side of the campaign). Europe is in severe trouble despite Ireland coming to it's rescue again with a yes vote. All those politicians that backed a YES vote should now be made to come out and apologies and even take a pay cut. Sure if they're allowed to get away with it why not throw in a YES vote will end world hunger and bring peace every where. I voted NO so as everyone understands what side I was on and not to muddy the waters.

dvpower

crusher000 wrote: »

I voted NO so as everyone understands what side I was on and not to muddy the waters.

I think we might have deduced that.

The stability etc was to flow from our access to the ESM (which hasn't come into existence yet) and to protect us from much greater instability that a rejection was to have brought upon us.

I don't remember anyone on the Yes side saying we were coming to the rescue of Europe - I think that's your own invention (and in a post were you deride false claims).

spank_inferno

I think the "stability" line was for our own rather than EU stability at large.

I don't recall any politician saying something as grand as the latter.

Did it work?
Hindsight does not afford us that view, however I think Ireland's position is probably more stable than Greece & possibly Spains.

crusher000

What I was mostly trying to get across is that politicans shouldn't be allowed to get away with making promises/assertions in any campaign regardless of referendum or elections and what side they're on. Stability for the country won't be secured regardless of what we do when the whole European program is in jeopardy. So like it or not stability in Ireland won't be forth coming as proclaimed in last referendum.

ardmacha

I don't think any politician seriously claimed that a Yes in Ireland would guarantee that all problems would be solved. They did claim that a No would increase instability.

Stability for the country won't be secured regardless of what we do when the whole European program is in jeopardy.

This is stating the obvious, although you wouldn't think that with some posts in here.

BOHtox

I'll just leave these here

Chucky the tree

Where's the instability? There is still stability like before so I think it's obvious the vote worked and was correct.

Grimreaper666

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where's the instability? There is still stability like before so I think it's obvious the vote worked and was correct.

The economy is far from stable, if you believe that you're living in the clouds.

crusher000

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Where's the instability? There is still stability like before so I think it's obvious the vote worked and was correct.

Are you living in a bubble ? Up on 450,000 people un employed. Front line services being cut in Health, Education and Defence. This is not the actions of a stable economy.

crusher000

BOHtox wrote: »

I'll just leave these here

If you read my post correctly I did say promises/assertions made by all sides Yes/No or regardless of referendum or elections. I stated that I voted No as to be honest and up front about which side I voted for in the referendum in case I was deemed to show bias towards one side or the other

Max Power1

BOHtox wrote: »

I'll just leave these here

I see you those.... and raise you.

Ill just leave this here:

Yes to Jobs - Yes to Lisbon.

But yet, where are these jobs?

Heads the ball

Europe and our own government lying to us? Nothing new here.

Europe has been bad for Ireland. Deciding to enter Europe has almost been our worst decision ever. Our worst decision was bailing out the banks.

But the problem is we are a desperate people; we can be led around by complete morons and if they tried they could probably get us to follow them over a cliff. They just dangle some BS rationale like "this is good for jobs" or some other tripe and we sign over our national soverignty.

BKtje

Are you honestly saying that Ireland would have been better off never joining the European Union (Ireland has no choice but to be part of Europe)?

I'm in my late twenties and even I have seen the changes in my life time much of which is due to the EU (either directly or indirectly). If I watch shows from before I was born I'm shocked at how much of a backwater Ireland was before the EU and it's money/policies.

Spokes of Glory

Heads the ball wrote: »

Europe has been bad for Ireland. Deciding to enter Europe has almost been our worst decision ever..

Can you elaborate why, bearing in mind we have been members since 1973. What are all the negative consequences since then ?

Entering the single currency and joining Europe were not the same thing.

SEPT 23 1989

Stability for the Elites

Heads the ball

BKtje wrote: »

If I watch shows from before I was born I'm shocked at how much of a backwater Ireland was before the EU and it's money/policies.

Ha ha ha ha. Right. We are very different now arent we?

Heads the ball

We have been good little pixies and did exactly as we were told.

View

crusher000 wrote: »

Well , what happened to this important vote of ours on Europe?. We were told that a yes vote would be a vote for "stability" oh ya they said jobs as well. Now we can't take every political campaign literally but is it time politicans are held accountable for what they promise in elections (they shouldn't be allowed to make unfounded promises on any side of the campaign). Europe is in severe trouble despite Ireland coming to it's rescue again with a yes vote. All those politicians that backed a YES vote should now be made to come out and apologies and even take a pay cut. Sure if they're allowed to get away with it why not throw in a YES vote will end world hunger and bring peace every where. I voted NO so as everyone understands what side I was on and not to muddy the waters.

The treaty is still being ratified so it has not entered into force yet.

Even the best laws need to be in force and usually a modicum of time to have passed before they start to have an impact.

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

The treaty is still being ratified so it has not entered into force yet.

Even the best laws need to be in force and usually a modicum of time to have passed before they start to have an impact.

This Treaty was not the market panacea that it was heralded as. In fact its complete utter tripe. Its like asking a child to spank himself after he does something wrong.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

This Treaty was not the market panacea that it was heralded as. In fact its complete utter tripe. Its like asking a child to spank himself after he does something wrong.

Again a treaty that is not in force can't act as a panacea as "the markets" can only guess as to whether or not it will enter force.

Your opinion of the treaty is a bit irrelevant since the referendum is over and was not supported by a majority of the electorate at the time. Most of them seem comfortable enough with their decision to date.

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

Again a treaty that is not in force can't act as a panacea

You are wrong. The broad terms of the treaty were negotiated and announced to the markets in an effort to calm them.

I think the majority of the electorate are not comfortable with it.

bbam

Heads the ball wrote: »

Europe has been bad for Ireland. Deciding to enter Europe has almost been our worst decision ever.
.

That post is among the most ridiculous I've seen in a while on boards.ie
If we haddnt joined Europe when we did Ireland would have remained a backwater island with no infrastructure, no economy, no employment rights, no equality legislation, no healthcare, no serious education, and no future Our role in life would to eek out spuds from our gardens and emigrate.
Ireland has benifeted from being in Europe and any saine person would realise that.

nacimroc

Heads the ball wrote: »

Europe has been bad for Ireland. Deciding to enter Europe has almost been our worst decision ever. Our worst decision was bailing out the banks.

....and we sign over our national soverignty.

And Ireland in the 80's without being heavily involved in Europe was better?? Sovereignty was fantastic back then with 3rd world public services, no roads, mass emmigration, tax rates >60% etc etc.

You can be as proud and miserable as you like, but if I had a choice of Haughey or Hollande, well.....I'd really have to think about it!

crusher000 wrote: »

Are you living in a bubble ? Up on 450,000 people un employed. Front line services being cut in Health, Education and Defence. This is not the actions of a stable economy.

Just because its bad doesn't mean it can't be worse. People on the no side of Europe seem to think the magic fix is to leave the Eurozone and go it alone! Jumping ship would make everything alot worse in the short term. Maybe your right and I would kind of be for it, but not hastily.

Heads the ball

bbam wrote: »

If we haddnt joined Europe when we did Ireland would have remained a backwater island with no infrastructure,

So they built a few roads for us so we signed away our right to sovereignty

bbam wrote: »

no economy,

We still dont have any real economy here - its all FDI/service based and we are clinging onto that by our fingertips because of our low tax rate

bbam wrote: »

no employment rights, no equality legislation, no healthcare, no serious education,

Eh we dont need Europe for rights and legislation. If anything Europe has hurt our rights

bbam wrote: »

and no future Our role in life would to eek out spuds from our gardens and emigrate.

In some parts of the country, this is still the case

crusher000

Europe has been good to us but it hasn't come for free. Always with the European funded roads, agriculture etc etc. But Europe has been the receiver of benefits from Ireland too. Our vast fishing stocks that left our own fishing industry in the poor place. The irony of it all is they'll probably fine us for not protecting fish levels when they're gone and it was other European Countries that blitzed our seas. But I diverse from the op so apologies.

Heads the ball

crusher000 wrote: »

Europe has been good to us but it hasn't come for free. Always with the European funded roads, agriculture etc etc. But Europe has been the receiver of benefits from Ireland too. Our vast fishing stocks that left our own fishing industry in the poor place. The irony of it all is they'll probably fine us for not protecting fish levels when they're gone and it was other European Countries that blitzed our seas. But I diverse from the op so apologies.

If I remember correctly Fintan O'Toole or John Waters (I beleive) actually crunched the numbers on the pros and cons for Europe.

He came to the conclusion that we were actually worse off (ie the negatives outweighted the pro's). So the roads didnt come free as you say. But not alone did they not come free - we are actually worse off as a result.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

You are wrong. The broad terms of the treaty were negotiated and announced to the markets in an effort to calm them.

Announcing something and getting it ratified and into force are two seperate things. A treaty can be announced yet either be rejected by a parliament and/or ruled unconstitutional by one or more Supreme Courts and hence fail to enter into force. The markets can only engage in "best guesses" at the results of such decisions as they are outside their control.

Heads the ball wrote: »

I think the majority of the electorate are not comfortable with it.

The results of the referendum would indicate otherwise. There is no indication the electorate want to re-visit the decision.

You seem to be confusing your dislike for the electorate's decision and the electorate's opinion of their decision.

Chucky the tree

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

The economy is far from stable, if you believe that you're living in the clouds.

crusher000 wrote: »

Are you living in a bubble ? Up on 450,000 people un employed. Front line services being cut in Health, Education and Defence. This is not the actions of a stable economy.

I never said it was stable. However we are in the same position as we were before the vote, we have remained the same. If there was a sudden down turn then you could claim instability however since there has no little no change I'd call that stability.

K-9

crusher000 wrote: »

What I was mostly trying to get across is that politicans shouldn't be allowed to get away with making promises/assertions in any campaign regardless of referendum or elections and what side they're on. Stability for the country won't be secured regardless of what we do when the whole European program is in jeopardy. So like it or not stability in Ireland won't be forth coming as proclaimed in last referendum.

It might be better to start a thread on that because the OP doesn't really say that clearly at all. I'm not sure this thread has much longer to go as it seems to be wandering away from your topic.

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

Announcing something and getting it ratified and into force are two seperate things. A treaty can be announced yet either be rejected by a parliament and/or ruled unconstitutional by one or more Supreme Courts and hence fail to enter into force. The markets can only engage in "best guesses" at the results of such decisions as they are outside their control.



The results of the referendum would indicate otherwise. There is no indication the electorate want to re-visit the decision.

You seem to be confusing your dislike for the electorate's decision and the electorate's opinion of their decision.

No I think you are confusing what the electorate want. You said a couple of posts ago "the majoirty of the electorate were happy with it"

I think very few people were happy with it and they just voted out of fear and sheepishness

The negative consequences of the Treaty wont really be felt until
1: We want to run a deficit or
2: We lose our ESM contribution when one of the borrowers goes belly up and defaults

Other than that its just another erosion of the meager soverignty which we had left

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

No I think you are confusing what the electorate want.

I understand what "Yes" means. You are the one arguing that it means "No, but..".

Heads the ball wrote: »

You said a couple of posts ago "the majoirty of the electorate were happy with it"

I think very few people were happy with it and they just voted out of fear and sheepishness

Ah, the old "The electorate must be stupid or afraid" to vote differently to me argument.

You can point out the recent mass demonstrations where the electorate have demanded that we refuse to ratify after all, can't you?

Heads the ball wrote: »

The negative consequences of the Treaty wont really be felt until
1: We want to run a deficit or
2: We lose our ESM contribution when one of the borrowers goes belly up and defaults

Other than that its just another erosion of the meager soverignty which we had left

The dire consequences scenario - I suppose they"ll happen around the time we"ll be forced to join NATO (as claimed first in the 1972 referendum on membership), introduce euthanasia and be mass-conscripted...

Still, no fear mongering in any of those claims, right?

Scofflaw

So, does a return to the bond markets constitute evidence of 'stability' for Ireland? I would say so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, does a return to the bond markets constitute evidence of 'stability' for Ireland? I would say so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No because the markets are fickle and it only takes one bad headline/new crisis to push us out again.

What exactly is stable here? A 6.something% interest? We are still running a deficit. So no returning to the bond markets is not evidence of stability

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

No I think you are confusing what the electorate want.

I understand what "Yes" means. You are the one arguing that it means "No, but..".

Heads the ball wrote: »

You said a couple of posts ago "the majoirty of the electorate were happy with it"

I think very few people were happy with it and they just voted out of fear and sheepishness

Ah, the old "The electorate must be stupid or afraid" to vote differently to me argument.

You can point out the recent mass demonstrations where the electorate have demanded that we refuse to ratify after all, can't you?

Heads the ball wrote: »

The negative consequences of the Treaty wont really be felt until
1: We want to run a deficit or
2: We lose our ESM contribution when one of the borrowers goes belly up and defaults

Other than that its just another erosion of the meager soverignty which we had left

The dire consequences scenario - I suppose they"ll happen around the time we"ll be forced to join NATO (as claimed first in the 1972 referendum on membership), introduce euthanasia and be mass-conscripted...

Still, no fear mongering in any of those claims, right?

I dont think there was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.

And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opened the door


However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering

timbyr

Heads the ball wrote: »

And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opebed the door

No we wouldn't. And no we aren't. If you haven't noticed it has been 20 years since the X Case. This legislation is long overdue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

I dont thibk tgere was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.

However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering

As for this. It is so backward and wrong I'm not even going to bother making an argument.

Heads the ball

timbyr wrote: »

No we wouldn't. And no we aren't. If you haven't noticed it has been 20 years since the X Case. This legislation is long overdue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.

timbyr wrote: »

As for this. It is so backward and wrong I'm not even going to bother making an argument.

OK. I win so.

timbyr

Heads the ball wrote: »

Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.

This actually helps my argument. We have three Irish parties taking a case against the Irish government for failing to enact Irish legislation based on an Irish Supreme court ruling using the ECJ as a medium.

So no. The ECJ is not forcing us to do anything.

OK. I win so.

OK. Let's play it that way.
You have made claims regarding the campaigns for and against the referendum.
Convince me these claims are justified.

syklops

We still dont have any real economy here - its all FDI/service based and we are clinging onto that by our fingertips because of our low tax rate

The amount of sh1te talking on this thread is almost unbelievable.

I work for a major software company, and last week my corporate credit card got levied with a 30 euro government tax. Everyone else in my office with a corporate credit card also got levied.

Whats my point? I work in the Czech republic but our finance office is in Cork, and so my corporate credit card is a Bank of Ireland card and the government tax was the irish Government. The other 1000 or so european employees with corporate cards who live outside of Ireland all got levied.

I remember going out to dinner with a woman from HR who was visiting, and I thought it hilarious that this HR woman from Israel carried with her, her Bank of Ireland credit card.

So thats about 30,000 euros for the government coffers, from one company. Add on all the other companies with either financial offices or headquarters here, and thats adding up to serious money, even ignoring the jobs they provide.

Where is the stability? The stability is in the thousands of IT and Pharma jobs that people are in at the moment. The stability is in Google being headquartered here, not in Zurich or Paris.

People love trotting out the 450,000 number of people out of work figure. Thats about 14.5% of the population. Its worth pointing out that at the height of the boom when there were jobs a plenty, the unemplyment percentage was about 5%, so the real unemployment figure is really about 9%. Contrast that with the unemployment rate of Spain, where the percentage out of work is over 24%.

Heads the ball

timbyr wrote: »

This actually helps my argument. We have three Irish parties taking a case against the Irish government for failing to enact Irish legislation based on an Irish Supreme court ruling using the ECJ as a medium.

So no. The ECJ is not forcing us to do anything.

They are pressurising us. No government has legislated on it for a reason. Now the ECJ is telling us to legislate. Pretty simple.

timbyr wrote: »

OK. Let's play it that way.
You have made claims regarding the campaigns for and against the referendum.
Convince me these claims are justified.

No. Why dont you convince me that the my previous post was wrong - other than just generally being backward.

Heads the ball

syklops wrote: »

Where is the stability? The stability is in the thousands of IT and Pharma jobs that people are in at the moment. The stability is in Google being headquartered here, not in Zurich or Paris.

People love trotting out the 450,000 number of people out of work figure. Thats about 14.5% of the population. Its worth pointing out that at the height of the boom when there were jobs a plenty, the unemplyment percentage was about 5%, so the real unemployment figure is really about 9%. Contrast that with the unemployment rate of Spain, where the percentage out of work is over 24%.

Not sure what your point on the credit cards is.

This so called stability associated with IT and Pharma and Google could not be further from stable; those companies are here primary because of our tax rate and in some cases the "dutch sandwhich" tax trick. We are hostage to these companies which do not allow us to raise our tax or they would be outta here.

We have no "real" economy - like if all the FDI/IFSC industry in Ireland collapsed, what would we have left in terms of real "stuff" that we make and do? Not very much. And that is highly unstable.

The comparison to Spain is laughable. Why are you bothering to point to Spain and say "we are not as bad as them"? SO WHAT! I could point out that Spain is not as bad as Rwanda but its irrelevant.

And the real unemployment figure is 14.5% AND GROWING

syklops

Heads the ball wrote: »

Not sure what your point on the credit cards is.

This so called stability associated with IT and Pharma and Google could not be further from stable; those companies are here primary because of our tax rate and in some cases the "dutch sandwhich" tax trick. We are hostage to these companies which do not allow us to raise our tax or they would be outta here.

They may be here primarily for our tax rate, and yes if we increase it they may leave, so lets not increase it. Meanwhile, they are employing people and paying tax. Sounds like an economy to me.

We have no "real" economy - like if all the FDI/IFSC industry in Ireland collapsed, what would we have left in terms of real "stuff" that we make and do? Not very much. And that is highly unstable.

Well if the IFSC collapsed tomorrow we would have bigger things to worry about, such as will Tesco be stocking milk tomorrow, and will Esso have oil so I can drive to tesco to check.

The comparison to Spain is laughable. Why are you bothering to point to Spain and say "we are not as bad as them"? SO WHAT! I could point out that Spain is not as bad as Rwanda but its irrelevant

Oh jesus. When the IMF and the ECB are looking at the figures for the countries in trouble. Ireland is put in the same report as Spain, as well as Italy and Greece. So camparing our situation to them is very relevant. If you don't understand that then there is not much point continuing the argument.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.

The ECJ had no involvement whatsoever in the case you cite.

That is a completely non-EU matter.

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

The ECJ had no involvement whatsoever in the case you cite.

Yes OK the ECHR

View wrote: »

That is a completely non-EU matter.

If you say so

Heads the ball

syklops wrote: »

Oh jesus. When the IMF and the ECB are looking at the figures for the countries in trouble. Ireland is put in the same report as Spain, as well as Italy and Greece. So camparing our situation to them is very relevant. If you don't understand that then there is not much point continuing the argument.

The IMF... The ECB. So what!

I am capable of doing my own research and unlike you, I dont take comfort in the fact that we are slightly better than a country that is doing terribly right now. Thats a flawed methodology.

syklops

Heads the ball wrote: »

The IMF... The ECB. So what!

I am capable of doing my own research and unlike you, I dont take comfort in the fact that we are slightly better than a country that is doing terribly right now. Thats a flawed methodology.

What do you mean so what?

In fact what the f**k is your main point? You asked, where is the stability. people try to show you it. And you say so what? WTF?

I have better things to be doing then trying to convince you that things aint so bad.

Heads the ball

syklops wrote: »

What do you mean so what?

In fact what the f**k is your main point? You asked, where is the stability. people try to show you it. And you say so what? WTF?

I have better things to be doing then trying to convince you that things aint so bad.

Here is my net point:

It is invalid to point at Spain and say "at least we are not as bad as they are" to demonstrate stability as (i) all you are proving is, we are not as bad they are, (ii) Spain would not be considered the definition of stability right now, (iii) the fact that we appear above Spain on an IMF report does not mean we as citizens of Ireland who are primarily concerned with Irelands interests should say "ok, we are doing better than Spain so we can consider ourselves stable"

Our economy is not stable as we issued bonds yesterday that were marginally below the "crisis" level of 7%.

We are still running deficits.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

I dont think there was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.

Right, promising permanent austerity wasn't scaremongering...

A fear can only be rational if there is a logical legal basis to it and not "the treaty doesn't prohibit ETs invading us, therefore it makes it certain that they will do so" ramblings.

Heads the ball wrote: »

And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opened the door

No, we wouldn't. The court has no legal basis for such decisions.

Heads the ball wrote: »

However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering

Leaving aside your claim, you run into a problem with this argument, namely it ultimately amounts to an argument against the use of referenda as if the electorate is influenced by scaremongering then the results of referenda are going to be so "tainted" that they are largely meaningless.

That then leaves us with a number of options:
A) we don't modify the constitution ever - a radical change from our recent practice where we are modifying it more often then we are holding general elections,
we put in restrictions on "wild claims" in referenda which will lead to claims that people's human right to "freedom of expression" are being restricted and/or claims that "the truth" is being suppressed, hence the referenda are "unfair" and meaningless as a test of "true" public opinion,
C) we change the method we use to modify the constitution with the most obvious method used internationally being the respective parliament modifies it usually by super-majority (typically a 2/3 one).

Alternatively, the view adopted by our courts seems to be that we have a unique opportunity to engage in nuanced legal arguments in the referenda campaigns and that it is not their fault if the electorate prefer the "Jerry Springer" school of debate. In which case, it is "tough luck"'if you lose.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes OK the ECHR



If you say so

It doesn't depend on my saying so.

Point out the ECJ rulings related to the issue.

crusher000

It's great to see all the too and fro-ing on the posts. Which brings me back to the point should politicians be held accountable for the statements they make in the run up to elections and referendums?. If there's this much disparity on the boards about a vote for/against stability what is the confusion out there amonsgt joe public ? So I think politicians are doing us a great dis service with their claims and if they don't deliver should be held accountable. Oh and no rhetoric about they're accountable come election time as this isn't the case. Some of our greatest blaggards were re elected.

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

Right, promising permanent austerity wasn't scaremongering...

No it wasnt as the Treaty does mandate austerity in times of deficit

View wrote: »

A fear can only be rational if there is a logical legal basis to it and not "the treaty doesn't prohibit ETs invading us, therefore it makes it certain that they will do so" ramblings.

I agree with this.

View wrote: »

No, we wouldn't. The court has no legal basis for such decisions.

We would if the ECJ ruled in that manner.

View wrote: »

Leaving aside your claim,

Why leave it aside?

View wrote: »

you run into a problem with this argument, namely it ultimately amounts to an argument against the use of referenda as if the electorate is influenced by scaremongering then the results of referenda are going to be so "tainted" that they are largely meaningless.

No it doesnt amount to an "i dont like refernda" because I do. My argument is we should not elect gombeen, party-line-towing, spineless creeps to represent us, as this type of person is most like to do us a disservice come referandum time.

I also think we should stop acting like sheep and following the fear tactics.

And I think the media have a huge degree of culpability - I cant think of more than three/four journalists/TV presenters who I think are thorough.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

No it wasnt as the Treaty does mandate austerity in times of deficit

Yes it was as the claim was permanent austerity not austerity when your economy is out of control. Rejecting the treaty also didn't alter that we need austerity to meet our pre-existing commitments on the deficit under EU law.

Heads the ball wrote: »

We would if the ECJ ruled in that manner.

Again, no legal basis exists for such rulings. If the court starts "inventing" the EU Treaties , the member states will not tolerate it and one or more member states could well leave as a result.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Why leave it aside?

To address the more substantial point on the use of referenda.

Heads the ball wrote: »

No it doesnt amount to an "i dont like refernda" because I do.

Well, then you are stuck with the "tough luck" scenario where the result is fully "fair and democratic" and you have a problem accepting it because you lost.

Heads the ball wrote: »

My argument is we should not elect gombeen, party-line-towing, spineless creeps to represent us, as this type of person is most like to do us a disservice come referandum time.

An interesting argument but the electorate get a free vote and if they vote for people you don't like, that is their democratic decision. No one ever said you get a veto on democratic decisions, did they?

Heads the ball wrote: »

I also think we should stop acting like sheep and following the fear tactics.

Again, ultimately, an argument against the use of referenda.

You are presuming the electorate are "acting like sheep" when, in fact, the electorate voted in favour of us joining the EU and there is no indication of any serious desire to leave or even wide-spread opposition to the objectives/tasks it is tasked with working towards.