No Vote = Worthless? No Voters = Stupid?

faceman

suimhneas wrote: »

Saying how all these major European employers are now going to decide now not to come to Ireland or maybe pack up and leave us, i don’t know about the rest of the county but i know where im from the major employers are American, cannot think of one eu employer, as a matter of fact there isn’t one in this part.

The rejection of the Lisbon treaty will potentially impact US investment too. It could be interpreted as political instability, a nation that has strayed from popular view. Now it can be easily argued within Europe that a Yes vote is not the popular view due to the lack of referundums in other countries, but i dont imagine all US unvestors will be au fait with the ins and outs of Lisbon as most of us.

wrote:

As for kicking us out of Europe, bring it on, people should not be afraid to go back to a time when we were more self sufficient, we had our own fuel, ( turf which the EU now wants to ban) We had our own crops, we had our own fish, we had our own meat, we knew what we were eating and where it came from. We are not bold children we are a highly intelligent resourceful nation.

Shall we look at the unemployment rates in ireland from prior our entry to the EU?
Or how about interest rates and emmigration?

We still have our own meat and thanks to better EU legislation, we know now where it comes from. We didnt know where it came from in many instances up until a few years ago.

wrote:

Im didn’t vote no so that the government would do a dirge about how stupid we are to not understand the treaty,

The government has never said that, nor has anyone in Europe. Although if you can cite references that show otherwise, please do.

wrote:

i voted no cause im sick to death of been stopped living the way we always have. Sanction after sanction, we have looked after our land our crops our fish, our bogs for hundreds and thousands of years. A lot of what has been stopped by the EU is what made this county attractive to tourists, our farmers on the bog, our fishermen, the hay stacks, i know it all sounds a bit twee to city dwellers perhaps. But when its gone is not the time to be missing it, it too late then

Where are you getting this information from????

I expect that given we dont have as big a wighted vote in the EU due to our rejection of Lisbon (Lisbon would have given us better voting power in Europe as opposed to the ridiculously unfair weighting system we currently have), its going to be harder I imagine to lobby Europe to make changes to existing fishing quotas etc. but im sure you took that point into consideration when voting no?

suimhneas

Shall we look at the unemployment rates in ireland from prior our entry to the EU?
Or how about interest rates and emmigration?

This is a headline from last weekIreland has experienced its largest ever recorded annual jobless increase with the number of people registering for unemployment assistance going up by almost 48,000 in the last twelve months, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) said.

As for the sanctions i dont know where you live, obviously in your own insulated world, where money is all that matters. But if your interested in finding out see what sanctions have been applied to fishermen and farmers by the EU in the last twelve months alone, been such a well educated fella you should be able to use a bit of google to help you out

Hitman Actual

suimhneas wrote: »

This is a headline from last weekIreland has experienced its largest ever recorded annual jobless increase with the number of people registering for unemployment assistance going up by almost 48,000 in the last twelve months, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) said.

Yes, but unemploymemt is still much lower than it was in the 70's and early 80's, when I think the figure at one stage was >15%. That figure of 48,000 is no surprise, tbh; more people were in employment than ever before, so when the hard times start to kick in, it follows that there will be a big increase in unemployment.

Tim Robbins

suimhneas wrote: »

Inflation is already too high in the Euro zone and the ECB will go up in July now.


How many times has inflation gone up in the past say 2 years, is that to be blamed on the lisbon treaty as well?

How can you control inflation in the euro - zone, if 27 countries can agree a system of governence? Basic economics states stability good, instability bad.


The euro going down 1.7% on Friday, is that just co-incidence?

faceman

You need to drop the attitude, its not doing you any favours.

suimhneas wrote: »

This is a headline from last weekIreland has experienced its largest ever recorded annual jobless increase with the number of people registering for unemployment assistance going up by almost 48,000 in the last twelve months, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) said.

The increase in those on the dole is solely contributed to the fall off in the construction industry. However the jobless figures and in no way comparable to the levels they were at in the 60's/70's/80's.

Also not to be pedantic but much of the boomtimes and in economic terms, zero unemployment in ireland was contributed to the construction industry. Through partnership initiatives, the EU funded many public ventures over the last 20 years.

wrote:

As for the sanctions i dont know where you live, obviously in your own insulated world, where money is all that matters. But if your interested in finding out see what sanctions have been applied to fishermen and farmers by the EU in the last twelve months alone, been such a well educated fella you should be able to use a bit of google to help you out

I live in ireland.
Im very familiar with the sanctions on fishermen and farmers. Similar sanctions exist across the EU. However i dont see how voting no has improved the situation for those particular workers, afterall the sanctions exist at present. As i said already, the existing political setup if anything, weakens ireland's voice in the EU due to the poor weighting of voting. Lisbon would have strengthened our influence in the EU. Therefore if any discussion is raised in parliment and its put to a vote, our influence wont make much difference. But like i said, im sure you took this into consideration when you voted no.

You really need to lose the attitude and not make this personal.

suimhneas

Yes, but unemploymemt is still much lower than it was in the 70's and early 80's

what has that got to do with anything? things in every stage in life is way different to what it was in the 70's and 80's. how can you even begin to compare?

limklad

ixtlan wrote: »

It's not a "power struggle"! The problem is that people just don't care about politics and they don't trust the politicians. If the people were struggling against the government they would elect Sinn Fein and others into power, or if those were unacceptable and the people really wanted to struggle, they would form new parties that promoted their view of the EU.

Ix.

In general elections people tend to vote for the best person available to do the job represent them. It is not true that they will elect Sinn Fein or extreme groups because they do not trust the government because they probably trust Sinn Fein or others even less. Many people did not trust the last government but still voted them back in because they were more trustworthy in their opinion than the others candidates.

There are a limited number of candidates on the election ballot list. You can either choose and have a say or not choose and let others choose for you by not voting.
It is always your choice to vote or not to vote.


It is not true that” most” people do not care about politics.
Referendum (1,621,037 in Lisbon Treaty) tends to have less people vote on them than in General elections (2,063,700 voted in 2007) out of an electorate of approx 3Million. Note that there are only approx: 3 Million electorate in Republic of Ireland.

Hitman Actual

suimhneas wrote: »

Yes, but unemploymemt is still much lower than it was in the 70's and early 80's

what has that got to do with anything? things in every stage in life is way different to what it was in the 70's and 80's. how can you even begin to compare?

Okay, you're really confusing me now. What point are you trying to argue? I thought you were saying that times were better before we were in the EU (well, EEC, really), or before the benefits of being in the EEC/EU started to really kick in?

nesf

limklad wrote: »

It is not true that” most” people do not care about politics.
Referendum (1,621,037 in Lisbon Treaty) tends to have less people vote on them than in General elections (2,063,700 voted in 2007) out of an electorate of approx 3Million. Note that there are only approx: 3 Million electorate in Republic of Ireland.

I wouldn't necessarily equate people who voted as people who care about politics. I know many who vote because they feel they should but they would have little interest in and pay little interest to politics in this country.

ixtlan

Outside the EU, farmers would lose CAP payments which shield them from having to compete on normal world markets. They complain about the level of those payments and about EU restrictions, but surely we would all agree that no payments would be much worse? And lifting the EU restrictions is not going to balance that loss.

The fishermen would be better off and and the industry could grow no doubt, but ultimately how many people can you employ in the fishing industry? Do you really want your kids working in fish factories in Kerry or Donegal?

To respond to this...

limklad wrote: »

There are a limited number of candidates on the election ballot list. You can either choose and have a say or not choose and let others choose for you by not voting.
It is always your choice to vote or not to vote.
...
It is not true that” most” people do not care about politics.
Referendum (1,621,037 in Lisbon Treaty) tends to have less people vote on them than in General elections (2,063,700 voted in 2007) out of an electorate of approx 3Million. Note that there are only approx: 3 Million electorate in Republic of Ireland.

I was disputing your point that there is a "power struggle" between the government and the people. A power struggle suggests 2 sides. Firstly the government is the people. Anyone who feels strongly enough can found a new party and seek support from the public in an election. If people cannot be bothered then they either are happy with the current politicians or they just don't care enough. Either way it's not a power struggle.

As for the numbers, it's sad that we consider 53% (is that right?) to be a good referendum turnout.

Ix

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How can you control inflation in the euro - zone, if 27 countries can agree a system of governence? Basic economics states stability good, instability bad.

The Independent ECB and the European commission the biggest say on inflations, Its’ main tool is setting Interest Rates (ECB) and/or say NO or suggest changes (European commission) to finance ministers.
We gave that up that right to set our own inflation targets in the Maastricht treaty with addition amendments in Amsterdam and Nice treaties.

Finance Ministers of each EU states that participate in the EURO must send their proposal of their budget to Both Institutions.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The euro going down 1.7% on Friday, is that just co-incidence?

Do not worry, Bush will screw things up more for that to go the other direction again.:)

Tim Robbins

limklad wrote: »

The Independent ECB and the European commission the biggest say on inflations, Its’ main tool is setting Interest Rates (ECB) and/or say NO or suggest changes (European commission) to finance ministers.
We gave that up that right to set our own inflation targets in the Maastricht treaty with addition amendments in Amsterdam and Nice treaties.

Finance Ministers of each EU states that participate in the EURO must send their proposal of their budget to Both Institutions.

Would you not agree with my point that economic growth is nigh impossible without stability? Hence, 27 countries need to agree a system of governence.

A (cringy) analogy is the way a business requires a business plan.

limklad

faceman wrote: »

a nation that has strayed from popular view

Not popular view from people point of view (there are no surveys or referendums of EU citizens to confirm this) but only from the Governments & Interest groups popular point of view. Big Big difference.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Would you not agree with my point that economic growth is nigh impossible without stability?

What exactly do you mean by stability?

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by stability?

Stability of governence which would imply less risk to business.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Stability of governence which would imply less risk to business.

You can have economic growth without that though. It'll just be more volatile. Ditto with volatility in the price level. Both aren't desirable.

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Would you not agree with my point that economic growth is nigh impossible without stability? Hence, 27 countries need to agree a system of governence.

A (cringy) analogy is the way a business requires a business plan.

No government how stable they are can keep the economy and inflation stable. Business decisions and money flow has a major effect.


All governments within the Euro, can do (to use an analogy) is try to steer cruise liner with a small paddle after it steers off course. It is up to the ECB and European Commission to try and control it better, but they are limited by what they can do, just like all of the other governments in the world.

Somalia manage to get broadband & mobile phones without a stable government, there is a growth in their economy there (Not a great one) without a stable government, this was quoted from the UN a number of years ago.

Scofflaw

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Yes, but unemploymemt is still much lower than it was in the 70's and early 80's, when I think the figure at one stage was >15%. That figure of 48,000 is no surprise, tbh; more people were in employment than ever before, so when the hard times start to kick in, it follows that there will be a big increase in unemployment.

It was 17% when I was at college in the 80's - and youth unemployment (18-25 years olds) was at 25-30%. That was after emigration of 50,000 people a year.

When you graduated, you bought an interview suit and a boat ticket. Still, there were farmers on the bog, and Irish fishermen at sea - and they were dirt-poor.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote: »

You can have economic growth without that though. It'll just be more volatile. Ditto with volatility in the price level. Both aren't desirable.

I disagree. One of the reasons why the 80's was a never ending recession, because there was a general election every 6 months.

One of the reasons why we ahd a Celtic Tiger was Bertie's Governments went the full term.

Stability is generally good. While Europe sorts outs its governence problems, the US and China march on.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. One of the reasons why the 80's was a never ending recession, because there was a general election every 6 months.

One of the reasons why we ahd a Celtic Tiger was Bertie's Governments went the full term.

That doesn't mean that stability is necessary for economic growth to occur. Instability does affect growth rates, there is no doubt of that, but it doesn't negate the possibility of growth like you are saying. Also, did you ever think that the causation, in this instance, worked both ways? Did we have frequent general elections because the country was in recession or did we have a recession because we had frequent general elections? The causal links here aren't as straightforward as you are making out.

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. One of the reasons why the 80's was a never ending recession, because there was a general election every 6 months.

The never ending recession during the 80's hits the world over with few exceptions. Our continuous fall in our governments during that time is not always to blame for recession. The US is in a recession at the moment, and when EU or US is in a recession, china biggest trading partners the knock on affects them too.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One of the reasons why we ahd a Celtic Tiger was Bertie's Governments went the full term.

No this is not true and very misleading comment. It started well before Bertie Governments, he just benefits from his predecessors (both sides of the DAIL) work. Policies from previous government and reinforce by successive governments showed multinational companies in foreign counties that our governments do not always reneged in business policies, in comparasion to other countries which had more unstable governments.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't mean that stability is necessary for economic growth to occur.

Of course economics is not an exact science. But in general stability is better for growth. Africa states don't even have the rule of law and find it hard to get economic growth.

Did we have frequent general elections because the country was in recession or did we have a recession because we had frequent general elections? The causal links here aren't as straightforward as you are making out.

Agree. It's could also be circular.

In general though stability is better, which is one reason why the EU is there in the first place. Or maybe the EU came from the stability

nesf

limklad wrote: »

No government how stable they are can keep the economy and inflation stable. Business decisions and money flow has a major effect.

There certainly isn't a one-for-one relationship where stable government = stable growth and price levels; however, that doesn't mean that stable government isn't a factor for more stable growth and price levels and it certainly doesn't mean that stable government is unrelated to stability in growth and price levels.

Tim Robbins

limklad wrote: »

No this is not true and very misleading comment. It started well before Bertie Governments, he just benefits from his predecessors (both sides of the DAIL) work. Policies from previous government and reinforce by successive governments showed multinational companies in foreign counties that our governments do not always reneged in business policies, in comparasion to other countries which had more unstable governments.

I said one of the reasons and it is true. Elections cost us a lot of money and government time. It's better to actually have your elected officials doing work for you, rather than constant changes of government and constantly having to go back to the drawing board.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In general though stability is better, which is one reason why the EU is there in the first place. Or maybe the EU came from the stability

It is very much desirable and good for an economy to have a stable government; however, your initial statement that growth was nigh impossible without stable government is incorrect.

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I said one of the reasons and it is true. Elections cost us a lot of money and government time. It's better to actually have your elected officials doing work for you, rather than constant changes of government and constantly having to go back to the drawing board.

My point is business do not care who (even if is Sinn Fein) is on power as long at they are not affect their business and can benefit greatly from the government of the day with increase profits. If Sinn Fein change their business attitudes and give Business option for profits. They (Business people) would be laughing with joy.

Business can make money out of instability, i.e. war zones for one example. It Business who make weapons, Armies need food and clothing communications etc. Business can succeed there too and gain profit.

Business people affect economy more than governments

nesf

limklad wrote: »

Business people affect economy more than governments

Not really. Governments can choose to affect business people in a large number of ways through the implementation of regulation, taxation, import barriers etc.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote: »

It is very much desirable and good for an economy to have a stable government; however, your initial statement that growth was nigh impossible without stable government is incorrect.

No it wasn't. Nigh means near. So growth is nearly impossible without stablity is ok.

Tim Robbins

limklad wrote: »

My point is business do not care who (even if is Sinn Fein) is on power as long at they are not affect their business and can benefit greatly from the government of the day with increase profits. If Sinn Fein change their business attitudes and give Business option for profits. They (Business people) would be laughing with joy.

Of course business cares whose in power. It has to operate under their rules.

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course business cares whose in power. It has to operate under their rules.

You missed my point and misread the quote you replied on, they do not care as long they can profit from it.