What would have happened if we voted NO a second time

maxxie · 30-09-2010 02:25PM #1

After all the scare tactics used by the Government and not to forget the plain ingorance of the Irish electorate, how bad would it have been if we had said no to the lisbon treaty a second time!

Surely not that bad considering the state this country is in! At least we the people would have maintained some of our soverign independence!

Now we are being forced to pay 29.3bn to bail out the bankers and their buddys! :eek: Democracy is dead!

dvpower · 30-09-2010 02:28PM

I'm not exactly seeing the connection.

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 02:30PM

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not exactly seeing the connection.

I don't think maxxie can provide one. Probably trying to blame the EU for Irelands mistakes.
As for the "democracy is dead" comment I'm befuddled.

Kelly4756 · 30-09-2010 02:37PM

We'd be made vote a third time

maxxie · 30-09-2010 02:38PM

typical boards replys! :rolleyes: die hard fianna failures!

dvpower · 30-09-2010 02:40PM

fontanalis wrote: »

I don't think maxxie can provide one. Probably trying to blame the EU for Irelands mistakes.
As for the "democracy is dead" comment I'm befuddled.

Ah. Now I understand.;)

the_syco · 30-09-2010 02:42PM

maxxie wrote: »

typical boards replys!

Typical sh|te thread - when asked for info to backup their claim, the OP says all those whose opinions differ are FF supporters :rolleyes:

Aiel · 30-09-2010 02:48PM

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

maxxie · 30-09-2010 02:48PM

the_syco wrote: »

Typical sh|te thread - when asked for info to backup their claim, the OP says all those whose opinions differ are FF supporters :rolleyes:

:pac:

Cookie_Monster · 30-09-2010 02:50PM

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

well if you'd ****ed up your budget so much you were in danger of causing the Euro to collapse everyone else would want a bit of oversight too in fairness.

CokaColumbo · 30-09-2010 02:55PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well if you'd ****ed up your budget so much you were in danger of causing the Euro to collapse everyone else would want a bit of oversight too in fairness.

That's not the point mate! We were told that our fiscal autonomy would remain just that, autonomous, and it didn't! Now, our corporation tax has been deemed "discriminatory" by the EU commission. What's next?!

Its only a matter of time before we become a Home Rule state in my opinion! Give it 40-50 years people.

30-09-2010 03:03PM

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

And if they hadn't "approved" it, what would have happened? Oh, that's right, nothing. The EU have no control over the Irish budget, all they can do is advise. Not to mention that the EU had exactly the same ability before Lisbon and the treaty changed nothing in relation to the budget

VW 1 · 30-09-2010 03:27PM

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty I'm afraid, that is to keep in line with the fiscal/budgetary provisions which came into being with the adoption of the Euro, there are guidelines which all of the Euro countries must conform to. In these exceptional times the ECB was merely helping/advising the Irish Government.

And by the way the ECB is a seperate and autonomous body to the EU, as all Central Banks should be in democratic institutions.

dvpower · 30-09-2010 04:47PM

Aiel wrote: »

We were told during the Lisbon 2 debate that we wouldnt have to answer to any E.U bodies in relation to budgets,tax etc and would have full control over them.Then a few weeks ago Brian Lenihan had to have the Irish budget approved by who before he was allowed go ahead with it????Oh,thats right,the E.U!!!!:mad:

We broke our stability pact agreements.

Denerick · 30-09-2010 05:52PM

Yet another boring anti EU thread. Find a new hobby horse lads, your dire warnings of 50cents per hour minimum wage and European conscription were a load of shíte then and its a load of shíte now.

Scofflaw · 30-09-2010 06:03PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

That's not the point mate! We were told that our fiscal autonomy would remain just that, autonomous, and it didn't! Now, our corporation tax has been deemed "discriminatory" by the EU commission. What's next?!

Its only a matter of time before we become a Home Rule state in my opinion! Give it 40-50 years people.

If that prediction is based on your understanding that the EU Commission has called Ireland's corporation tax "discriminatory", then we can safely set it aside, because that's entirely inaccurate.

The people who called it discriminatory are two MEPs - that is, Members of the European Parliament - and they issued the statement as individuals, unsupported by their parties, never mind the Parliament.

I appreciate that without eurosceptics, there would barely be an EU forum at all, but would it hurt to be even vaguely accurate?

wearily,
Scofflaw

Hotblack Desiato · 01-10-2010 12:44AM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

That's not the point mate! We were told that our fiscal autonomy would remain just that, autonomous, and it didn't!

It's hard to be fiscally autonomous when you're borrowing well over 20 billion euro a year to pay the bills.

Denerick wrote:

Yet another boring anti EU thread. Find a new hobby horse lads, your dire warnings of 50cents per hour minimum wage and European conscription were a load of shíte then and its a load of shíte now.

Actually conscription into the Eur2.30/hour European army doesn't look all that unappealing now as it used to

censuspro · 01-10-2010 11:16PM

maxxie wrote: »

After all the scare tactics used by the Government and not to forget the plain ingorance of the Irish electorate, how bad would it have been if we had said no to the lisbon treaty a second time!

Surely not that bad considering the state this country is in! At least we the people would have maintained some of our soverign independence!

Now we are being forced to pay 29.3bn to bail out the bankers and their buddys! :eek: Democracy is dead!

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

On the world stage there will be uncertainty over Ireland’s political future
Ireland’s influence in Europe will diminish
Ireland’s international influence will diminish
Foreign Direct Investment both from existing Irish Based businesses and potential investors will reduce
International confidence in Ireland will diminish leading to an increase in the cost of National Borrowing
There will be significantly less appetite in Europe for assisting Ireland in our current economic difficulties
We expect that existing jobs will be lost and potential new jobs will not be created
Ireland will not retain a commissioner
Other EU countries may want to reopen the debate on our corporation tax rate

Scofflaw · 02-10-2010 12:00AM

censuspro wrote: »

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

The reason I suspect a lot of people changed their minds on Lisbon is that they realised the brown stuff was starting to hit the fan, and we didn't need the fallout from a No on top of what was coming, not because they thought a Yes would prevent the chickens coming home to roost. The first No was the last hurrah of the attitude that got us up the creek in the first place - beggars on horseback sneering at people who were 'jealous' of our 'success'.

regards,
Scofflaw

View · 02-10-2010 12:06AM

censuspro wrote: »

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

Actually, we'd probably just be finishing the debate on Lisbon III around now.

censuspro wrote: »

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

If a mechanic tells you "If you don't fix those brakes you could crash" and you duly fix the brakes, that doesn't mean you won't have a crash. The causes of crashes are, after all, varied.

Martin 2 · 02-10-2010 02:24AM

censuspro wrote: »

What would happen if we voted no a second time? Well, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now at the moment.

In fact, if we look at the points made on the pro Lison website lisbon2.ie, they have listed the potential consequences of a No vote. Every one bar the point on the EU commissioner reflects exactly the position we are in now at the moment.

You list a series of predicted outcomes for a No vote and state that the Yes vote produced the same outcomes therefore we would be in exactly the same position had we voted Yes or No. You may be correct in terms of direction but you have missed or ignored magnitude. So before you can say that a yes or no vote would have exactly the same outcome you need to go through each point and decide if a yes has made the situation more or less bad and ideally quantify the effect. Good luck with that!

Finally, the referendum wasn't just about the economy, the treaty introduced some much needed reforms of the EU institutions and introduced some positive EU objectives on energy and the environment. Had we voted No those reforms and objectives might be a long time coming.

censuspro · 02-10-2010 10:38AM

Martin 2 wrote: »

You list a series of predicted outcomes for a No vote and state that the Yes vote produced the same outcomes therefore we would be in exactly the same position had we voted Yes or No. You may be correct in terms of direction but you have missed or ignored magnitude. So before you can say that a yes or no vote would have exactly the same outcome you need to go through each point and decide if a yes has made the situation more or less bad and ideally quantify the effect. Good luck with that!

Finally, the referendum wasn't just about the economy, the treaty introduced some much needed reforms of the EU institutions and introduced some positive EU objectives on energy and the environment. Had we voted No those reforms and objectives might be a long time coming.

Irish people were more concerned about the economic effects of Lisbon than about the "much needed reforms". People were led to believe that if they voted No there would be consequences for Ireland when a Yes or a No vote would have made no difference to the outcome.

I wonder if we had voted No would the Yes campaigners claim that our economic situation was as a direct result of our No vote?

Irish people were also led to believe that a Yes vote meant that our tax regime was completely off the agenda. However our CT regime has come under scrutiny a number of times since Lisbon 2, even as recent as this morning. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1002/breaking6.html

censuspro · 02-10-2010 10:45AM

View wrote: »

Actually, we'd probably just be finishing the debate on Lisbon III around now.

If a mechanic tells you "If you don't fix those brakes you could crash" and you duly fix the brakes, that doesn't mean you won't have a crash. The causes of crashes are, after all, varied.

I fail to see the analogy. I a mechanic tells me to fix my brakes because I could crash, he then fixes the brakes, the brakes fail and I still crash. The cause of the crash is not varied, it's because my brakes failed.

02-10-2010 11:06AM

censuspro wrote: »

Irish people were more concerned about the economic effects of Lisbon than about the "much needed reforms". People were led to believe that if they voted No there would be consequences for Ireland when a Yes or a No vote would have made no difference to the outcome.

How can you possibly know that? It's likely that we would be in a much worse position if we had voted no, and we certainly would have a lot less leverage in the EU bailout negotiations

censuspro wrote: »

I wonder if we had voted No would the Yes campaigners claim that our economic situation was as a direct result of our No vote?

Well there are idiots on both sides, but the vast majority would have said the mess wouldn't have been as bad. And they'd most likely be right

censuspro wrote: »

Irish people were also led to believe that a Yes vote meant that our tax regime was completely off the agenda

Who believed that? If they actually believed that voting yes meant the EU could never have any influence on our tax rate, and our rate was set in stone for all eternity, then they're idiots and shouldn't be voting. What was actually stated was that nothing in Lisbon (i.e. what they were voting on) would have an effect on our corporation tax. Which is perfectly true

ART6 · 02-10-2010 11:08AM

I was firmly in the "No" camp, not because I didn't see the need for EU reform, but because I was very concerned that other countries whose peoples were opposed (France and Holland) and who voted no the first time round were not given any say in the second round. The British were promised a referendum but the promise was cynically broken when it was obvious that the people wouldn't vote in favour of anything to do with the EU. That is not democracy and it should not be used as a part of the mechanism of reform.

So, if we had voted "No" the second time? Those other member states that cynically abandoned democracy would have progressively shut us out into the cold. Now, in our impoverished state, we could expect them as member states to use their muscle to exact a price from us. Part of that price, I would guess, would be harmonising our tax regime with the EU average. By finally voting "Yes" it seems that we may have delayed that for a while at least, and it may give us a chance to recover.

Note the word "may". I suspect that with our present government, as soon as the EU starts to crack the whip there will be an immediate whimpering capitulation with the routine excuse that EU law gives us no alternative. So in the long run I am not convinced that either vote option would have any effect. Sooner or later we will become a fully paid up district of the more efficient EU that resulted from the abandonment of the will of the people.

At least we won't be bothered by any more referenda.

Martin 2 · 02-10-2010 11:36AM

censuspro wrote: »

Irish people were more concerned about the economic effects of Lisbon than about the "much needed reforms". People were led to believe that if they voted No there would be consequences for Ireland when a Yes or a No vote would have made no difference to the outcome.

Did you even bother to read my post, how do you know a Yes or No would have made no difference to the outcome? I believed and still believe we'd probably be in a worse situation after a No but I can't prove it conclusively. I was supported in this believe by the vast majority (80%+) of MNC CEOs, economists and people surveyed on the issue.

I wonder if we had voted No would the Yes campaigners claim that our economic situation was as a direct result of our No vote?

Yes, they might claim that our probably worse situation was as a result of a No vote, again it couldn't be proved conclusively. I will say this as someone who has met some of our main MNC executives and has been involved on the periphery of FDI (ie. putting on dog and pony shows for potential investors etc.) that there was great relief at the outcome of the referendum.

Irish people were also led to believe that a Yes vote meant that our tax regime was completely off the agenda. However our CT regime has come under scrutiny a number of times since Lisbon 2, even as recent as this morning. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1002/breaking6.html

I assume you're referring to our guarantees, these were necessary to counter the impression given by the No side that Lisbon would affect our direct taxation regime or that the possibility of a CCCTB was more likely under Lisbon. I believe even you have admitted in this forum that Lisbon affected neither. The fact that our low tax regime (btw, not just CT) has been mentioned in our current circumstances is no surprise but has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the Lisbon referendum and would most likely have happened had we voted No, am I wrong? If anything the fact that we voted yes will make it easier to deal with other EU politicians and institution given that they were in favour of the treaty and goodwill goes a long way in any negotiations.

censuspro · 02-10-2010 04:51PM

28064212 wrote: »

How can you possibly know that? It's likely that we would be in a much worse position if we had voted no, and we certainly would have a lot less leverage in the EU bailout negotiations

Well there are idiots on both sides, but the vast majority would have said the mess wouldn't have been as bad. And they'd most likely be right

By the same account how can you be so sure that a No vote would be any worse just as I can’t say for certain that a Yes vote was any better?

28064212 wrote: »

Who believed that? If they actually believed that voting yes meant the EU could never have any influence on our tax rate, and our rate was set in stone for all eternity, then they're idiots and shouldn't be voting. What was actually stated was that nothing in Lisbon (i.e. what they were voting on) would have an effect on our corporation tax. Which is perfectly true

Unfortunately people are not prevented from voting because of their perceived lack of intelligence. People were led to believe that there were potential consequences for a No vote, those potential consequences have transpired even after we voted Yes so that begs the question what were the advantages of voting Yes in first place?

evercloserunion · 02-10-2010 05:10PM

When we voted Yes, Moody's ratings agency reported that it was "rating positive" so as bad as we are now I do think we would be in a worse situation had we voted No.

Next time we have a referendum on an EU treaty I will be out reminding people about how pretty much every argument advanced by the No camp about the consequences of a Yes vote turned out to be completely untrue. Most people now see the No side for the joke it was; I just wonder where this commonsense was in 2008.

Scofflaw · 02-10-2010 09:15PM

censuspro wrote: »

I fail to see the analogy. I a mechanic tells me to fix my brakes because I could crash, he then fixes the brakes, the brakes fail and I still crash. The cause of the crash is not varied, it's because my brakes failed.

Because you may have crashed into an oncoming vehicle round a blind bend. Nothing to do with your brakes, but still a crash.

Unfortunately people are not prevented from voting because of their perceived lack of intelligence. People were led to believe that there were potential consequences for a No vote, those potential consequences have transpired even after we voted Yes so that begs the question what were the advantages of voting Yes in first place?

That we would have had those consequences on top of what was already coming - indeed, lest we forget, what had largely already happened. Ireland's bond spread jumped to nearly its current levels between the two votes, unemployment rose to nearly its current level between the two votes, the banks bailouts started between the two votes...etc etc etc.

People looked at those things, and decided they probably didn't need the downside consequences of a second No vote on top of those. That you (and other eurosceptics) appear to believe these things happened after the Yes vote shows a really quite startling ability to rewrite really quite recent history to suit your prejudices. The chickens came to roost largely between the two votes, not after the Yes vote. If anyone can claim a post hoc ergo propter hoc victory on the strength of the timing, it's the Yes side, since virtually all the bad things happened after the No vote and before the Yes vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

View · 02-10-2010 10:49PM

censuspro wrote: »

I fail to see the analogy. I a mechanic tells me to fix my brakes because I could crash, he then fixes the brakes, the brakes fail and I still crash. The cause of the crash is not varied, it's because my brakes failed.

If you re-read what I said. I said:

If a mechanic tells you "If you don't fix those brakes you could crash" and you duly fix the brakes, that doesn't mean you won't have a crash. The causes of crashes are, after all, varied.

I did not state that the crash that occurred was as a result of brake failure (even though you had fixed the brakes).

Crashes can have multiple causes. You could, for instance, fix your brakes and then drive at reckless speed into a bend and crash due to excessive speed.

Likewise, you can "crash" an economy by reckless encouraging a bubble in one sector - property - due to having multiple tax incentives that all encourage investment in property thus generating artifical demand which pushes up prices.

Not that we'd do anything stupid like that, of course - instead, it must be the clauses in Lisbon that gave increased powers to the European Parliament that caused our economic woes.

censuspro · 03-10-2010 11:54AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because you may have crashed into an oncoming vehicle round a blind bend. Nothing to do with your brakes, but still a crash.

That we would have had those consequences on top of what was already coming - indeed, lest we forget, what had largely already happened. Ireland's bond spread jumped to nearly its current levels between the two votes, unemployment rose to nearly its current level between the two votes, the banks bailouts started between the two votes...etc etc etc.

People looked at those things, and decided they probably didn't need the downside consequences of a second No vote on top of those. That you (and other eurosceptics) appear to believe these things happened after the Yes vote shows a really quite startling ability to rewrite really quite recent history to suit your prejudices. The chickens came to roost largely between the two votes, not after the Yes vote. If anyone can claim a post hoc ergo propter hoc victory on the strength of the timing, it's the Yes side, since virtually all the bad things happened after the No vote and before the Yes vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

Point is that people were led to believe that there would be adverse economic consequences as a direct result of a No vote. As we both know a Yes or a No vote would not have prevented what happened. But my point is, why was it ok for the Yes side to effectively scare people into a Yes vote by saying that the national cost of borrowing would increase if we voted No, why were those consequences even listed in the Yes campaign when we both know a Yes or a No vote would have no impact on their outcome. By the same account, the No side could have listed all those consequences as a result of a Yes vote and could have justified themselves because that’s what ultimately transpired. When people voted Yes to Lisbon, they did so because they wanted to avoid the perceived consequences of a no vote. At no point were they given car crash analogies about their brakes failing or were they told our national cost of borrowing could increase even if we voted Yes.

What would have happened if we voted NO a second time

Comments