Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Having a government, or the EU, step in and force a company to maintain it's geographical location, for any reason (outside of environmental protection, I suppose) echo's the same policies in Soviet Russia, where the central government dictated where a factory was located.

Do you not see how it's an extremely overbearing governmental interference in the free market?

Incidentally, do you think that multinationals should only be prevented from moving within the EU, but should be allowed to move outside it, e.g. India?

Editing for further clarification:
I have no problem with Governments offering incentives to stay, but no free market nation in the world would legally prevent a multinational corporation from moving.

Where the EU can be pro active here is setting out a fixed rate in line with inflation where a wage rate cannot be allowed to drop below a certain point. And again in line with the market forces that prevail within the country of employment, Wage rates can not go above a certain rate.
How do you do that. It is probably very hard to regulate. In the mean time we take on as one TD said recently the vested influences that are destabizing the economy.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Where the EU can be pro active here is setting out a fixed rate in line with inflation where a wage rate cannot be allowed to drop below a certain point. And again in line with the market forces that prevail within the country of employment, Wage rates can not go above a certain rate.
How do you do that. It is probably very hard to regulate. In the mean time we take on as one TD said recently the vested influences that are destabizing the economy.

What you're talking about is introducing, effectively, an EU 'minimum wage', which instead of being a single, trans-continental absolute number, is a percentage of the cost of living in each State, or Province, or even County?

This won't solve the problem you are having though, because the cost of living varies across the continent, so will the minimum wage, and there will still be an incentive to move to a cheaper location, as that location will still exist.

Also what if that meant the EU set our minimum wage to 80% of what it is now, would you be prepared to accept that? Would the Unions?

That is *very* different, of course, to advocating the legal prevention of a company moving.

Personally I think that EU membership will raise the standard, and cost of living in the cheaper nations, until they are closer to par with us, just as happened to us after we joined.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What you're talking about is introducing, effectively, an EU 'minimum wage', which instead of being a single, trans-continental absolute number, is a percentage of the cost of living in each State, or Province, or even County?

This won't solve the problem you are having though, because the cost of living varies across the continent, so will the minimum wage, and there will still be an incentive to move to a cheaper location, as that location will still exist.

Also what if that meant the EU set our minimum wage to 80% of what it is now, would you be prepared to accept that? Would the Unions?

That is *very* different, of course, to advocating the legal prevention of a company moving.

Personally I think that EU membership will raise the standard, and cost of living in the cheaper nations, until they are closer to par with us, just as happened to us after we joined.

I said setting the minimum wage in line with inflation. You cannot have wages that are either set too low or too high.
As for the Unions they probably wouldn't agree to it but how high are wage bills supposed to go.
Again this is down to outside market forces due to a vastly inflated property bubble and crippling interest rates on mortgages which leads to Workers seeking high wages to meet the requirements of a high cost of living.
So as I said EU can be pro active here and say to govt justify why this land cost this much, why these interest rates are so high and ask how well the financial institutions are being regulated.
And given the rate of international borrowings we have to be prepared to justify our balance sheet.
Anyone with a basic grasp of economics can see that this situation was allowed to spiral out of control because we were so used to the idea of borrowing.

thirtythirty

"Future"Taoiseach, anyone with an Ahern quote in their sig can't ever expect to be taken seriously. Seriously. Especially that fool Dermot.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

I said setting the minimum wage in line with inflation. You cannot have wages that are either set too low or too high.
As for the Unions they probably wouldn't agree to it but how high are wage bills supposed to go.
Again this is down to outside market forces due to a vastly inflated property bubble and crippling interest rates on mortgages which leads to Workers seeking high wages to meet the requirements of a high cost of living.
So as I said EU can be pro active here and say to govt justify why this land cost this much, why these interest rates are so high and ask how well the financial institutions are being regulated.
And given the rate of international borrowings we have to be prepared to justify our balance sheet.
Anyone with a basic grasp of economics can see that this situation was allowed to spiral out of control because we were so used to the idea of borrowing.

I agree with your analysis, but I doubt the majority would be happy to cede the authority to the EU, which it would require to enact what you are talking about.

Even though I happily would, being a federalist and all

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree with your analysis, but I doubt the majority would be happy to cede the authority to the EU, which it would require to enact what you are talking about.

Even though I happily would, being a federalist and all

Well at the end of the day, if Ireland cant control its borrowing (brought on by a lack of regulation and inablity to take on the vested interests) then we may cede those powers to an international body.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Your words not mine. That is not my view. In fact, it is a caricature of my views.

It seems to me that your own views are a caricature of your views.

worldrepublic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems to me that your own views are a caricature of your views.

Caricatures are bad! No, seriously, the British establishment used to print caricatures of the Irish as pigs, or as monkeys. We were considered sub-human, on the evolutionary scale.

So this is maybe a sensitivity?

Maybe we could move on from this, let it go?

Sam Vimes

spottyelephant wrote: »

"Future"Taoiseach, anyone with an Ahern quote in their sig can't ever expect to be taken seriously. Seriously. Especially that fool Dermot.

Especially because the vast majority of people did not vote no because they had specific objections to articles of the treaty. Why change things that no one has voiced objections to

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Especially because the vast majority of people did not vote no because they had specific objections to articles of the treaty. Why change things that no one has voiced objections to

Not one poll showed a majority of those who voted no did so for reasons unconnected with the Treaty. Not one. And by a majority I mean over 50%. I believe ignorance on the Treaty was just as strong on the yes side, given even the govt's research showed people voting yes for reasons that were irrelevant to Lisbon such as 'EU has been good for Ireland'. And even were what you were saying the truth, that is the prerogative of the Irish voter i.e. to vote whatever way they want for whatever reason they want.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

given even the govt's research showed people voting yes for reasons that were irrelevant to Lisbon such as 'EU has been good for Ireland'.

What research was that?

Nevermind, found it myself...

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/post%20lisbon%20treaty%20referendum%20research%20findings_sept08.pdf

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Not one poll showed a majority of those who voted no did so for reasons unconnected with the Treaty. Not one. And by a majority I mean over 50%.

In fact exactly one did.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0911/1221039067528.html
42% lack of knowledge
Over 40% thought it would effect our corporate tax
Over 33% thought it brought in conscription and abortion

I realise there would be some overlap there but that would easily go over 50%

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I believe ignorance on the Treaty was just as strong on the yes side, given even the govt's research showed people voting yes for reasons that were irrelevant to Lisbon such as 'EU has been good for Ireland'. And even were what you were saying the truth, that is the prerogative of the Irish voter i.e. to vote whatever way they want for whatever reason they want.

If ignorance was a reason on the yes side, that still doesn't mean that articles of the treaty should be changed

Also, "the EU has been good to Ireland" is a good reason to vote yes, especially in the absence of any actual reason to vote no

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And even were what you were saying the truth, that is the prerogative of the Irish voter i.e. to vote whatever way they want for whatever reason they want.

Ah, democracy.

"I've been entrusted with running the country - I choose to exercise that responsibility on a whim with no rational basis."

Funny how we wouldn't accept that behaviour from elected representatives, but it's considered some sort of divine right when the electorate do it.

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Not one poll showed a majority of those who voted no did so for reasons unconnected with the Treaty. Not one. And by a majority I mean over 50%.

Eurobarometer disagrees:

Reasons for voting “no” to the Lisbon Treaty|% "no" Vote
Because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with|22
To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters|6
I do not trust our politicians|6
To protect our tax system|6
I am against the idea of a unified Europe|5
To protest against the government's policies|4
It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia|2
To avoid an influx of immigrants|1
Total|52

djpbarry wrote: »

Eurobarometer disagrees:

Reasons for voting “no” to the Lisbon Treaty|% "no" Vote
Because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with|22
To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters|6
I do not trust our politicians|6
To protect our tax system|6
I am against the idea of a unified Europe|5
To protest against the government's policies|4
It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia|2
To avoid an influx of immigrants|1
Total|52

Some of those issues are pertinant to Lisbon in the view of the no voters, notably neutrality (Article 28A of the TEU requiring countries to use "all means in their power" to defend other states, and other provisions dealing with the European Defence Agency). Being against the idea of a unified Europe is also pertinant in that Lisbon furthers European integration. Also, the taxation issue could have been relevant in the context of the new Articles 113 of the TFEU, outlawing "distortions of competition", which could include the Irish corporate tax rate. What your post goes to show is that there is much in Lisbon that is not black and white - that is open to differing interpretations.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Also, the taxation issue could have been relevant in the context of the new Articles 113 of the TFEU, outlawing "distortions of competition", which could include the Irish corporate tax rate.

No, it couldn't, and you know it couldn't, and no amount of pretending that it could will make it even approximate something that's a second cousin to something that's true.

Stop making stuff up. If you can't find any real problems with Lisbon and you have to invent imaginary problems to object to, it really can't be that bad.

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Some of those issues are pertinant to Lisbon in the view of the no voters, notably neutrality...

Lisbon does not impact upon Ireland’s neutrality in any way, but I think you know that.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Being against the idea of a unified Europe…

…implies being anti-EU and, most likely, anti- any treaty produced by the EU.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Also, the taxation issue could have been relevant…

No, it could not, but, once again, I think you know that.

djpbarry wrote:

…implies being anti-EU and, most likely, anti- any treaty produced by the EU.

It implies no such thing. It may imply, for example, preferring the status-quo. Democracy demands the right to dissent. We should not reverse the course of European history since the Enlightenment by going back to the bad old days when Europeans had their opinions handed down to them by their leaders.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It implies no such thing. It may imply, for example, preferring the status-quo.

Being opposed to the idea of a unified Europe means preferring the status quo?

You are aware, aren't you, that the status quo is of a unified Europe?

It's complete nonsense to support the idea of a unified Europe as represented by the status quo, while rejecting the idea of a unified Europe as envisioned in the Lisbon treaty.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Being opposed to the idea of a unified Europe means preferring the status quo?

You are aware, aren't you, that the status quo is of a unified Europe?

It's complete nonsense to support the idea of a unified Europe as represented by the status quo, while rejecting the idea of a unified Europe as envisioned in the Lisbon treaty.

I mean being opposed to a politically more united Europe. Just because we have gone some of the way, doesn't mean we have to go all the way.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I mean being opposed to a politically more united Europe. Just because we have gone some of the way, doesn't mean we have to go all the way.

I accept that it's possible that some people are opposed to the Lisbon treaty because they feel that the EU has achieved a perfectly optimal level of union, and they don't want to see that perfection marred in any way.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and speculate that they are outnumbered - by several orders of magnitude - by people who are opposed to any form of European union at all. I'd even speculate that they are outnumbered by those who are opposed to union, but claim to be in favour of it in its present form.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I accept that it's possible that some people are opposed to the Lisbon treaty because they feel that the EU has achieved a perfectly optimal level of union, and they don't want to see that perfection marred in any way.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and speculate that they are outnumbered - by several orders of magnitude - by people who are opposed to any form of European union at all. I'd even speculate that they are outnumbered by those who are opposed to union, but claim to be in favour of it in its present form.

So anyone who opposes further European integration is an extremist - is that what you're saying? So much for democracy.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So anyone who opposes further European integration is an extremist - is that what you're saying? So much for democracy.

Given that you shift your ground so often, and make so many claims that do not stand up to scrutiny, it is hardly surprising that you interpreted oscarBravo's post as you did.

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I mean being opposed to a politically more united Europe.

But that's not what the poll said, is it?

x MarK x

QUESTION FOR SCOFFLAW.

I was reading about the "text of the gaurantees". Section D, was
FINAL PROVISIONS, and it said, "this shall take effect on the same day as the treaty of lisbon".

Can you answer, is this an assumption, the treaty will be passed? Or is it said with certainty?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So anyone who opposes further European integration is an extremist - is that what you're saying?

Here's a helpful hint: if you want to know what I'm saying, read what I'm writing.

In other words, stop making stuff up. I accept that this will be difficult.

Scofflaw

x MarK x wrote: »

QUESTION FOR SCOFFLAW.

I was reading about the "text of the gaurantees". Section D, was
FINAL PROVISIONS, and it said, "this shall take effect on the same day as the treaty of lisbon".

Can you answer, is this an assumption, the treaty will be passed? Or is it said with certainty?

It's an "if/else" condition. If Lisbon takes effect, the guarantees take effect the same day. If Lisbon doesn't take effect, neither do the guarantees.

"Shall" indicates a decision, as opposed to an intention ("will") - it's not a definitive statement about the future!

cordially,
Scofflaw

JP Liz

No for the second time