90% of Irish economists 'back a Yes vote'

meglome · 26-05-2012 07:58PM #1

90% of Irish economists 'back a Yes vote'

Survey claims nine out of ten economists back Yes vote

Nine out of ten of "Ireland’s leading economists" say a yes vote in the Fiscal Treaty is in Ireland’s best interest, according to a new survey,

The Indecon International Economic Consultants survey of the views of 44 economists in Ireland also claims that one of the most significant impacts of the Treaty vote arises from the inability to access EMS Funds if Ireland voted ‘No’.

More than eight out of ten economists surveyed (84%) believe that even if funding "could be secured from other sources", Ireland would be likely to face a higher cost of borrowing.

They also said that the fiscal clauses in the Treaty would not impact on austerity in Ireland, or impose additional cuts in public expenditure.

According to the survey, 81 per cent of economists believe that a ‘Yes’ vote would not necessitate additional cuts in policy expenditure in the period to end 2013 and over 71 per cent believe it would not result in additional cuts after 2013.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/Politics/90%25+of+Irish+economists+%27back+a+Yes+vote%27/id/19410615-5218-4fbf-93e6-390982093312

I posted it in another thread but I think it's important enough to have one of it's own.

Very positive news for the Yes campaign.

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 07:35AM

The consultants who carried out this poll, Indecon, have been in receipt of contracts from the Irish govt for several years.

Merrionstreet.ie wrote:

Minister Coveney announces Indecon consultants to carry out review of the Irish Horse Racing industry

Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine today announced the awarding of a contract to carry out a review of certain aspects of the Horse Racing Industry had been awarded to Indecon.

The Minister said “The Review is intended to provide the basis for a renewed impetus to the development of the horse racing industry. It will cover a number of crucial aspects of the industry – legislation, governance structures, the size, structure and nomination process for appointments to the Board of Horse Racing Ireland, streamlining of functions and the funding model for the industry.”

Minister Coveney confirmed that the contract had been awarded to Indecon following the conclusion of a competitive tendering process which was published on the Government’s etenders procurement website.

Referring to the stakeholder consultation process facilitated by his Department as part of the Review, Minister Coveney said “I am delighted with the level of interest and enthusiasm demonstrated by stakeholders in the Review. My Department received in excess of 40 submissions which have been passed to Indecon for consideration.”

The Minister repeated his belief in the potential of the thoroughbred sector to make an even greater contribution to the country’s economic recovery in the future and said he looked forward to receiving the report of the review. He stated “the report will be important in providing the basis for actions to underpin the development of the horse racing and breeding sector into the future.”

Note for Editors

The Terms and Reference for this review are as follows:

1. Review the legislation governing the Irish horse racing industry, in particular the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994, the Horse and Greyhound Racing (Betting Charges and Levies) Act, 1999, Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 and the Horse Racing Ireland (Membership) Act 2001, and assess whether they provide the most appropriate governance structures for the horseracing industry.

2. Evaluate whether the Horse Racing Ireland Board structure, size and nomination process is appropriate and effective. Make recommendations for change, if necessary.

3. Consider the scope for streamlining all of the functions assigned under the legislation having regard to efficiency, effectiveness, economy and independence of regulatory decisions and make recommendations accordingly.

4. Review the current funding arrangements for the industry having regard to funding systems in place in other major racing competitor countries and recommend an appropriate funding structure for the long term development of the sector.

Also under the FF govt:

(Then) Taoiseach Brian Cowen wrote:

The Taoiseach: In September 2010, following a public tender process, Indecon International Economic Consultants were awarded the contract to provide technical economic assistance to officials in Government Departments conducting Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) and other technical exercises relating to the Better Regulation agenda. The aim is to help Departments improve the quality of the quantitative assessment of legislative proposals.

In the OECD Report on Better Regulation in Ireland (November 2010), the OECD recognised the need to improve the quality of quantitative analysis conducted in this context and to make greater use of this support. An earlier independent Review of the Operation of RIA, which was published in 2008, also recommended maintaining this support for Departments. The contract with Indecon International Economic Consultants is for a period of 2 years. Departments must first seek the prior approval of the Department of the Taoiseach to avail of this support and the number of consultancy days is agreed based on a needs assessment. To date, €13,929.70 has been spent under this contract.

[174]

In January 2007, following a tender process, Indecon International Economic Consultants were commissioned to conduct a review of the Irish Annuities Market. The Review was undertaken under the auspices of the Partnership Pensions Review Group comprising of representatives of Government Departments, the Pensions Board, IBEC and ICTU, and established under the terms of Towards 2016. The report of this review was published in October 2007. The cost of this review was €133,100.

rasper · 27-05-2012 08:16AM

Wonder how many of this 90% pretended that we'd have a soft landing , people will vote no because their is a total lack of trust and that the Irish people have been sold already

PopeBuckfastXVI · 27-05-2012 09:02AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The consultants who carried out this poll, Indecon, have been in receipt of contracts from the Irish govt for several years.Also under the FF govt:

Why don't you come out and say what you are implying here?

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 09:06AM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Why don't you come out and say what you are implying here?

I would have found this more credible coming from a consultancy not so tied to the political Establishment. The govt is giving them contracts, and that same govt is desperate for this referendum to pass.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 27-05-2012 09:08AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I would have found this more credible coming from a consultancy not so tied to the political Establishment. The govt is giving them contracts, and that same govt is desperate for this referendum to pass.

And you think that this has caused them to...

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 09:13AM

I'm not accusing them on impropriety but I think the press are giving too much weight to this poll, having regard to what I've said. It doesn't help in the impartiality stakes if only in perception terms that they are in receipt of govt contracts.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 27-05-2012 09:17AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm not accusing them on impropriety but I think the press are giving too much weight to this poll, having regard to what I've said. It doesn't help in the impartiality stakes if only in perception terms that they are in receipt of govt contracts.

So you're not accusing them of impropriety, just that everyone should probably think that there was impropriety involved. More than a little dastardly, in my opinion.

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 09:31AM

Irish economy to grow in 2010, economist tells packed crowd at Paddy Ryan Memorial Lecture.

Vita nova · 27-05-2012 10:16AM

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:

-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 10:20AM

Vita nova wrote: »

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:

-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

I think the Partnership process has led to business organisations becoming co-opted with govt positions to an disturbing degree.

I would like Indecon to release the names of all 44 economists so we can scrutinise the accuracy of previous predictions from them, and draw appropriate conclusions for their credibility now.

beeftotheheels · 27-05-2012 10:23AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think the Partnership process has led to business organisations becoming co-opted with govt positions to an disturbing degree.

Except for Libertas?

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 10:24AM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Except for Libertas?

Since when are they are a business organisation?

beeftotheheels · 27-05-2012 10:26AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Since when are they are a business organisation?

I'm sorry, St Columbanas A-G, so difficult to distinguish.

guinnessdrinker · 27-05-2012 10:26AM

Normally on seeing a statistic like that one would come to the opinion that "90% of economists can't be wrong". However on this occasion, I would be very interested in what the 10% that do not back a "Yes" vote have to say.

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 10:35AM

David McWilliams has just come out on Marian Finucane as "leaning towards a no" (his words). He is one of the few Irish economists to predict the property-bubble which he did in a mini-series on RTE a few yrs back. I think the Irish people would do well to remember whose predictions came true in the past. Jim Power wants a yes vote and he predicted a "soft landing".

oscarBravo · 27-05-2012 10:39AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think the Partnership process has led to business organisations becoming co-opted with govt positions to an disturbing degree.

Yes, I think everyone would agree that for-profit commercial businesses will align themselves with a government position that is, in fact, not in their own best interests.

You couldn't make it up.

swampgas · 27-05-2012 12:07PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

David McWilliams has just come out on Marian Finucane as "leaning towards a no" (his words). He is one of the few Irish economists to predict the property-bubble which he did in a mini-series on RTE a few yrs back. I think the Irish people would do well to remember whose predictions came true in the past. Jim Power wants a yes vote and he predicted a "soft landing".

IMO McWilliams has a slight problem here: as a celebrity economist a lot of his reputation is tied up with his image as a contrarian, goes-against-the-mainstream, calls-it-as-it-really-is kind of guy.

He may well consider a "yes" vote to be the best option, but I reckon he is afraid of being accused of selling out if he does anything as silly as go along with the government opinion.

meglome · 27-05-2012 12:46PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The consultants who carried out this poll, Indecon, have been in receipt of contracts from the Irish govt for several years.Also under the FF govt:

What is it with you no guys that when people disagree with you get straight to the suggestions they're paid off (amongst all the other tactics).

meglome wrote: »

Actually I'm going to add another one.

No side tactics…
1. Pull on the heart strings.
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.
7. Claim bias at every possible opportunity.

No 7. is interesting as especially SF are great at claiming bias but their default position on every treaty with Europe is a no.

I have said Declan Ganley is a liar... well... because he is. He has consistently said things that are not true.

rasper wrote: »

Wonder how many of this 90% pretended that we'd have a soft landing , people will vote no because their is a total lack of trust and that the Irish people have been sold already

90% of that list is around 40 of our top economists so why don't you find out how many said we'd have a soft landing? I can't help but notice that the handful of economists supporting a no don't get the same scrutiny though.

And sorry but if people are foolish enough to vote no because it's raining that day or whatever other nonsense reason then there's nothing anyone can do about that.

steelcityblues · 27-05-2012 12:57PM

swampgas wrote: »

IMO McWilliams has a slight problem here: as a celebrity economist a lot of his reputation is tied up with his image as a contrarian, goes-against-the-mainstream, calls-it-as-it-really-is kind of guy.

He may well consider a "yes" vote to be the best option, but I reckon he is afraid of being accused of selling out if he does anything as silly as go along with the government opinion.

You do realise in 'respectable' official Ireland it is much easier to say publicly that you're a yes person on matters European?

Yet, hear you are patronisingly saying that one economist did not come to his decision of a no vote on his own volition, it must be due to fear of 'selling out'. Even if we are talking about the same guy who went against mainstream economic opinion, years ago. This is a new level of biased opinion.

meglome · 27-05-2012 12:59PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

You do realise in 'respectable' official Ireland it is much easier to say publicly that you're a yes person on matters European?

Yet, hear you are patronisingly saying that one economist did not come to his decision of a no vote on his own volition, it must be due to fear of 'selling out'. Even if we are talking about the same guy who went against mainstream economic opinion, years ago. This is a new level of biased opinion.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/seamus-coffey-david-mcwilliams-analysis-of-private-debt-is-stark-but-it-also-100pc-wrong-3000117.html

Seamus Coffey: David McWilliams’ analysis of private debt is stark ... but it also 100pc wrong

DAVID McWilliams wrote an article for Wednesday’s Irish Independent under the heading "Private debt so enormous that default is only option". The conclusion is stark: In Ireland, given the magnitude of the debt, it is very clear to me that only a fraction of this household and corporate debt will be actually paid off. The figures scream default.

The figures in the piece do indeed scream default, but the figures are wrong. 100pc wrong.

Studies have shown that an appropriate maximum ratio of mortgage debt to gross household income is around four. The data provided in the McWilliams article indicate that total debt in Ireland is more than eight times Gross National Product, a widely used measure of national income. For countries it has been argued that they should not have a debt greater than three times national income.

If Irish debt were eight times national income, Ireland would indeed be bust and there would be no way the debt could even be carried, never mind paid off. With such a debt burden default would indeed be an inevitable outcome.

However, Irish debt is actually around four times national income and using figures 100pc greater than this is misleading. The data come from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) who try to use gross and unconsolidated data as a measure of overall indebtedness. This can lead to unusual results.

KindOfIrish · 27-05-2012 01:05PM

Vita nova wrote: »

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:

-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

All the above supported property bubble as well :rolleyes:

meglome · 27-05-2012 01:19PM

KindOfIrish wrote: »

All the above supported property bubble as well :rolleyes:

Did they? In what way?

swampgas · 27-05-2012 01:24PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

You do realise in 'respectable' official Ireland it is much easier to say publicly that you're a yes person on matters European?

Yet, hear you are patronisingly saying that one economist did not come to his decision of a no vote on his own volition, it must be due to fear of 'selling out'. Even if we are talking about the same guy who went against mainstream economic opinion, years ago. This is a new level of biased opinion.

My point is that McWilliams has made a name for himself by going against mainstream opinion - and he may feel under pressure to maintain his anti-mainstream position, thus limiting his ability to fully support a Yes vote, if that's what he really thought was right.

To me, "leaning towards a No" is a strange position for him to take. Surely he has figured out at this stage whether he is for or against the treaty? Why the fence-sitting weasel words, unless he wants to allow himself room to manoeuvre in the event of a Yes vote?

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 01:31PM

I'm not sure whether I'm a 'yes' person or a 'no' person on this issue, but I'd ask the 'no' voters to ask themselves whether they would be making the same arguments they are here if the poll found that 90% of the economists agreed with them.

christmas2012 · 27-05-2012 01:37PM

irish economists have been wrong before,remember the recession?

anyway,i think i might hazard a yes vote simply because it could be dangerous for us not to,ie having to borrow money at a higher interest.

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 01:39PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

irish economists have been wrong before,remember the recession?

anyway,i think i might hazard a yes vote simply because it could be dangerous for us not to,ie having to borrow money at a higher interest.

On the other hand, the longer we keep going with the current plan (borrow, borrow, borrow), the longer we persist with an unreformed civil service and professional elite (lawyers, doctors etc.) who have been creaming off vast amounts of money and continue to do so from a now bankrupt state. Add on all of the thousands of people continuing to live in properties that they are not paying for (at the expense of the taxpayer) - I don't know, perhaps it is time to hit the reset button?

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

swampgas · 27-05-2012 01:45PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the other hand, the longer we keep going with the current plan (borrow, borrow, borrow), the longer we persist with an unreformed civil service and professional elite (lawyers, doctors etc.) who have been creaming off vast amounts of money and continue to do so from a now bankrupt state. Add on all of the thousands of people continuing to live in properties that they are not paying for (at the expense of the taxpayer) - I don't know, perhaps it is time to hit the reset button?

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

The prospect appeals to me at one level - I'm impatient by nature. However the carnage really would be pretty bad, and you are making some brave assumptions to assume that (1) it only be for a few years, and (2) that the carnage wouldn't permanently damage the long term growth of the country.

Also, my worry would be that many of the vested interests you mention would escape any real reform even if we did "hit the reset button".

Monty Burnz · 27-05-2012 01:47PM

swampgas wrote: »

The prospect appeals to me at one level - I'm impatient by nature. However the carnage really would be pretty bad, and you are making some brave assumptions to assume that (1) it only be for a few years, and (2) that the carnage wouldn't permanently damage the long term growth of the country.

Yes, fair points.

swampgas wrote: »

Also, my worry would be that many of the vested interests you mention would escape any real reform even if we did "hit the reset button".

Yeah, I totally agree. The country seems to be run largely for the benefit of these people, and it is an act of faith to expect that to change, bar some disastrous (and comical) socialist revolution.

Ozymandius2011 · 27-05-2012 01:49PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the other hand, the longer we keep going with the current plan (borrow, borrow, borrow), the longer we persist with an unreformed civil service and professional elite (lawyers, doctors etc.) who have been creaming off vast amounts of money and continue to do so from a now bankrupt state. Add on all of the thousands of people continuing to live in properties that they are not paying for (at the expense of the taxpayer) - I don't know, perhaps it is time to hit the reset button?

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

The Croke Park agreement shields the public sector from cuts in their sometimes exorbitant pay. The axe will fall elsewhere, except in terms of public sector job losses, which will be minimised by powerful unions. Labour will see to that.

shanered · 27-05-2012 02:29PM

Its an absolute disaster because nobody is able to take the bull by the horns and tackle the issues head on.
The whole economist label is not one that should lie with the same level of knowledge of certainty as an engineer or a doctor.
It is more a faith led with a few rules and broad complex systems at play that cannot be predicted due to factors and uncertainties that would be at play.
In other words, they don't really have a clue how to operate in the modern present day and would be able to tell you in hindsight how things turned out in the past and their take on the past events.
The problem is uncertainty, and economists just cannot get it right, they can guess and be right but its only a prediction.
Its easy for them to be "anti-whats happening" as they can say it when the opposite is happening and use the arguement "if you did it may way it would have been different...."
But I really believe this Referendum is much more about the politics rather then the economy, even though there are some serious blackmail type scenarios being put to us so as to vote yes in this referendum.
As it stands from the economy's point of view is that we are darned if we do and we're darned if we don't.
We need to get things in order one way or the other and the main thing we need to decide is if we can do it ourselves, or we do we need somebody to do it for us.
Signing this treaty is signing up to an indefinte contract with our money suppliers (ECB), whereby we are currently seriously in debt as it stands and spend more money running our household than we earn on a day to day basis,
and what the main part of this contract is that we will be fined if we produce a defecit.
that they will lend for day to day spending to a certain degree but will not allow us indebt ourselves for the sake of our future.
As it stands we need money so as to get this place up and running again, we have taken on huge banking debts that we shouldn't have but carrying what we have at the moment, which realistically is an country that is in huge debt and falling deeper into debt as we continue......
We have now to decide if we in our current state want to sign up in perpertuity that we can never spend more than the set amount for money to run our day-to-day services so everything seems tickedy boo for the next little while?
It really annoys me when people think this a good idea as it seems to me that people really dont see the bigger picture that slowly but surely we are handing power away from our country and that is eventually going to have serious implications for the younger generations of Ireland.

90% of Irish economists 'back a Yes vote'

Comments