Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
[Article] Why the Irish Voted No - The Economist
Options
Comments
-
-
-
thehighground wrote: »Apologies Leonard about the vagueness of my posts. Perhaps it will help you understand why some people are a bit concerned about the vagueness of the Lisbon Treaty and why some assurances might be the difference in changing the vote.
As for the bullying claim - apologies again, I didn't notice your post at the end of the other thread and that is why I didn't respond (I do have to do some work every now and again!).
The sequence of events that I recall (and I don't have time to look up newspaper references are).
1. On the morning that the Irish Gov. bailout of Irish banks - Brian Lenihan said on 'Morning Ireland' that he had contacted the EU for advice to be told by the EU that we were on our own. (I think they have now set up a hotline for Finance Ministers!
)
2. Later that day the Commissioner responsible for competition announced that this could be uncompetitive.
3. It was after this that the British Gov. complained.
Key thing to remember here is that according to Brian Lenihan, he did contact the EU. How come someone didn't mention uncompetitiveness then?
Its the results of their involvement that is the important thing. The EU didn't find the NR bailout uncompetitive some months before the Irish banks situation. Yet, a couple of months later, after being requested for help and being told that 'we were on our own' an investigation is launched and we are threatened with fines.
All this is dropped when it is discovered that the rest of Europe is in exactly the same mess as we are!
Firstly, apologies if I was bit abrupt in my post; I get that way sometimes.
Just a couple of points: I don't remember, and can't find any reference to what Brian Lenihan was told by the EU at the outset of the bank plan. To be told "we were on our own" seems strange considering the plan clearly would be very controversial regarding financial sector competitiveness (as it proved to be, particularly with British institutions). I'd really like to know in what context Brian Lenihan was speaking, or the context of exactly what he was told by the EU.
Also, I think you're getting caught up in the minor details over the reaction of the EU to the NR bailout and the Irish plan. The main point, imo, is that the EU investigated both plans in the context of anti-competitiveness. I definitely don't consider the EU to be "bullying" Ireland in this regard, as the original plan was hastily put together and had quite a few problems, which have since been sorted out.0 -
lenny_leonard wrote: »Firstly, apologies if I was bit abrupt in my post; I get that way sometimes.
Just a couple of points: I don't remember, and can't find any reference to what Brian Lenihan was told by the EU at the outset of the bank plan. To be told "we were on our own" seems strange considering the plan clearly would be very controversial regarding financial sector competitiveness (as it proved to be, particularly with British institutions). I'd really like to know in what context Brian Lenihan was speaking, or the context of exactly what he was told by the EU.
Also, I think you're getting caught up in the minor details over the reaction of the EU to the NR bailout and the Irish plan. The main point, imo, is that the EU investigated both plans in the context of anti-competitiveness. I definitely don't consider the EU to be "bullying" Ireland in this regard, as the original plan was hastily put together and had quite a few problems, which have since been sorted out.
It was a quote from Brian Lenihan on 'Morning Ireland' (probably about 7.20am) on the morning of the announcement that the Irish Gov. were going to guarantee Irish banks. Perhaps it is archived on RTE, but I don't have time to look for it now.
I would not expect to find that quote in the Irish Times somehow or other.
As regards anti-competitiveness - the EU had investigated NR and somehow or other it was not deemed to be anti-competitive (imo, it doesn't matter what the economic climate is - it either is or it isn't anti-competitive) but it seems strange that 3/4 hours after being told we were on our own, the EU announces that we could be in trouble with competitiveness. Why didn't they say to Brian Lenihan that we could be in trouble/fined for anti-competiveness.
Either they (EU Bureaucrats) are not up to the job of running the EU, or else they were trying strong arm tactics to bully Ireland (which will never work on us). They really are clueless when it comes to PR though!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
thehighground wrote: »It was a quote from Brian Lenihan on 'Morning Ireland' (probably about 7.20am) on the morning of the announcement that the Irish Gov. were going to guarantee Irish banks. Perhaps it is archived on RTE, but I don't have time to look for it now.
I would not expect to find that quote in the Irish Times somehow or other.
As regards anti-competitiveness - the EU had investigated NR and somehow or other it was not deemed to be anti-competitive (imo, it doesn't matter what the economic climate is - it either is or it isn't anti-competitive) but it seems strange that 3/4 hours after being told we were on our own, the EU announces that we could be in trouble with competitiveness. Why didn't they say to Brian Lenihan that we could be in trouble/fined for anti-competiveness.
Either they (EU Bureaucrats) are not up to the job of running the EU, or else they were trying strong arm tactics to bully Ireland (which will never work on us). They really are clueless when it comes to PR though!
I'm just repeating myself now, so this is my last post on this (I hope!). We don't know in what context Brian Lenihan was speaking, and we don't know exactly what was said by the EU when they were contacted about the bank guarantee. I've done a lot of searching and I can't find any links or sources.
The EU investigated the NR bailout and found it wasn't anti-competitive. One reason, from the FT is:Financial Times wrote:British officials pointed Dublin to the example set when the government nationalised Northern Rock last February: the bank promised it would not use its taxpayer guarantee to boost its market share of retail deposits above 1.5 per cent.
The original Irish guarantee was clearly anti-competitive, as also described in that FT link. Once the Irish plan was tightened up, the EU were happy with it.
I personally find comments about the EU being "bully's", or phrases like "United States of Europe" ridiculous in the extreme; I really think people should have a bit more common sense. I don't see the problem in the EU's response to the bank guarantee, but it's an easy target for eurosceptics to put a lot of spin on.0 -
Okay so who questioned the NR move and what became of it? A link would be nice.
I don't know who questioned the NR move.
It was Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Competition who quetioned the Irish Gov. bank guarantee (on the same day as the announcement of the Guarantee). The British Gov. got in on the act a couple of days later (2/3 days).Our Corporate Tax was not under threat from the Treaty. I have seen absolutely no proof to suggest it was in months of debating the point.
Thats the thing - we don't trust the EU on this because we know that the two most powerful countries in the EU (France & Germany) would prefer if we didn't have a 12% tax rate. Written assurances might help.Our neutrality was secured in that we did not have to partake in action if we did not want to.
You believe it, quite a few don't feel so assured about it.The reduction of the Commission was set in stone in the Nice Treaty, not in the Lisbon Treaty. While the Lisbon Treaty did in fact specify that "we" (they are not representatives of Ireland, buit lets ignore that point for now) would lose a permament Commissioner I'm at a loss as to what the alternative is for a small country like Ireland on a reduced Commission. What better deal could we have gotten other than complete equality with all other states?
You seem to have forgotten that the Nice Treaty was rejected the first time and then we had to vote again 'the right way.' There is a problem with democracy in Europe.If you read my post correctly I made no such judgements on No voters as a whole. In fact I said things like "if" the data we were seeing was true and qualifying my statements by saying things like "some" No voters were ignorant as "some" Yes voters were also. If you can prove the studies wrong or prove that all No voters were completely enlightened on the Treaty then please fire away, otherwise stop leaping to conclusions about what I was saying. The evidence that we have seen thus far suggests ignorance, its not me saying that.
Sorry, my interpretation of your posts is that you think 'No' voters are quite stupid, and really should not have a vote.Your points above show a blatant ignorance of the Treaty themselves anyway.
:DYou lambast me for taking certain peoples words for things yet you seem all too happy to do the same with a different shower. At the very least I have provided numerous links over the months to substantiate my position. Rather than poo-pooing them maybe it might be a bit more productive to provide some of your own.
I'm not lambasting you - I just pointed out that it was hardly a 'neutral' source.
I don't provide too many links because most of the sources are biased one way or another. RTE News is probably the only ones who report 'News' without some sort of a spin. Thats a little more difficult to provide links to. The Irish Times are shockingly biased. Long gone are the days that it was the "paper of record.'0 -
-
Advertisement
-
That's nothing but here ‘say.
I'm surprised you are not referring to it as more Libertas lies.
Anyway, here is a reference to when competition laws were first mentioned:EC to study details (Tuesday, 30th Sept. 2008) RTE website
The European Commission has said it would study details of the decision to see whether the move complied with EU competition rules.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0930/economy.html
I believe the British Gov. didn't complain until the following Thursday!
You will have to listen to the Morning Ireland programme to hear what Brian Lenihan had do say.
Main reason was loss of sovereignty - neutrality / no wish to contribute or be involved in an EU Army / corporate tax rate (some friends working for US companies in Ireland) basically quite happy with the present relationship we have with the EU and no interest getting any closer to the EU.So why did they vote 'No'?
Please, please don't give me another lecture now on Lisbon.Why is the result of Nice II any less valid than the first? Are people not allowed to reconsider their position?
Who said it was invalid. Problem with it was that it was pointless voting in the first place.Most of the reasons I have seen for voting 'No' have been pretty stupid. I'm sure there were plenty of stupid reasons for voting 'Yes' too.
I'm sure you won't have too much trouble finding RTE coverage of the bank guarantee scheme and the EU's reaction to it:D:D:D
You crack me up!0 -
lenny_leonard wrote: »I'm just repeating myself now, so this is my last post on this (I hope!). We don't know in what context Brian Lenihan was speaking, and we don't know exactly what was said by the EU when they were contacted about the bank guarantee. I've done a lot of searching and I can't find any links or sources.
Presumably Lenihan let his tongue run loose a bit and then was told to pipe down. The Telegraph probably quoted him. They are as bad as the Irish Times when it comes to bias.
As far as I can recall, it was mentioned about 7.20am Tuesday 30th Sept. on Morning Ireland. I don't read every newspaper in the country, so I don't know if he was quoted anywhere else.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0930/morningireland.html0 -
-
-
-
oscarBravo wrote: »...so they vote "no" in order to f*ck up that relationship.
Yup. Perfectly sensible approach.
No, we havent 'f*cked up' anything - according to the Irish Ambassador to the EU on tv last night. 0 -
thehighground wrote: »No, I don't know who questioned the NR move. All I know is that the NR was nationalised a couple of months prior to the Irish Gov. attempting to offer a guarantee to all Irish banks.
But you were comparing the two scenarios. You now admit t knowing very little at all about the NR scenario so how can you possibly compare the two with any degree of accuracy?thehighground wrote: »All your opinion and I did say I didn't want another Lisbon Treaty lecture.
My apologies I had it written before you posted that comment, just didn't hit the submit button for a while. Either way should you wish to inform yourself these points have been discussed with links and proof galore to show that "my opinion" is actually pretty accurate. I didn't pull it out of my arse, in fact I was initially inclined to a No vote myself until I took the time to go through the details of the Treaty properly.thehighground wrote: »And if you can't see how disrespectful you are to people who voted no, I give up.
I am not in any way disrespectful to No voters as a whole. There are No voters out there (as I have already said) with genuine reasons for voting No just as there are Yes voters out there that were ignorant. Unless of course I'm also being disrespectful towards Yes voters too?
I may concede to being disrespectful to your opinion here. The reason for this being that you are one of a small number of individuals who have partaken in the Lisbon debate for a good number of months now, who's points have been addressed with plenty of proof to the contrary and yet you still spout the same lines. How can I possibly respect an opinion that is held against all of the evidence and with no evidence of its own though?
BTW don't get that disrespect of an opinion confused with disrespect of you as a person. I don't know you so don't have an overall opinion at all.... 0 -
But you were comparing the two scenarios. You now admit t knowing very little at all about the NR scenario so how can you possibly compare the two with any degree of accuracy?
Dear Lord! I don't believe this. Once more - this is what I understand to have happened and the sequence.
1. NR was not viewed to be uncompetitive by the EU (despite it being nationalised) a couple of months previous (I don't know if it was investigated by the EU - just that NR has been nationalised an as far as I know it has not been fined by the EU).
2. Brian Lenihan said he contacted the EU the night before the Irish Gov. announced the Irish Banks Gov. guarantee. The EU told him he was on his own (reported on Morning Ireland that morning).
3. Later that same day, Neelie Kroees announced that the Irish Gov. Bank guarantee would be investigated for anti-competitiveness and their could be EU fines.
4. I would personally view nationalisation of a bank to be far more anti-competitive than offering an Irish bank gov. guarantee. (i.e., more people would be more likely to deposit their pensions in NR than in any other bank because it is fully backed by the British Gov.).My apologies I had it written before you posted that comment, just didn't hit the submit button for a while. Either way should you wish to inform yourself these points have been discussed with links and proof galore to show that "my opinion" is actually pretty accurate. I didn't pull it out of my arse, in fact I was initially inclined to a No vote myself until I took the time to go through the details of the Treaty properly.
I think most people have cottoned onto Goebells (sp!) propaganda theories of frequent repetition etc. etc. of the same thing, that it eventually become true. Please give over!I am not in any way disrespectful to No voters as a whole. There are No voters out there (as I have already said) with genuine reasons for voting No just as there are Yes voters out there that were ignorant. Unless of course I'm also being disrespectful towards Yes voters too?
You protest too much.I may concede to being disrespectful to your opinion here. The reason for this being that you are one of a small number of individuals who have partaken in the Lisbon debate for a good number of months now, who's points have been addressed with plenty of proof to the contrary and yet you still spout the same lines. How can I possibly respect an opinion that is held against all of the evidence and with no evidence of its own though?
BTW don't get that disrespect of an opinion confused with disrespect of you as a person. I don't know you so don't have an overall opinion at all....
I'm here over 2 years - you are here since May.
The words kettle, pot, black come to mind
I've mostly only posted here when I've seen posts that I know/consider to be factually inaccurate or that I disagree with.
One thing I'd check would be your sources and would tend to disregard the following: EU press releases, Irish Time, Irish Indo., The Telegraph, Daily Mail etc. are the main ones.
RTE News/BBC News I would also rate - in fact anyone who doesn't have some agenda or who actually quote people directly.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement