Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon

BlitzKrieg

and you pm me all the appropiate responses to counter any points you bring up...


please?

nesf

cozmik wrote: »

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here. I assume you can lay out a reasoned argument based on how public debt works and present global economic conditions to show why worries about the effect of a No-vote on international confidence in this country are unfounded and baseless?

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here. I assume you can lay out a reasoned argument based on how public debt works and present global economic conditions to show why worries about the effect of a No-vote on international confidence in this country are unfounded and baseless?

Or, alternatively, why you should ignore those consequences?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, alternatively, why you should ignore those consequences?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good point.

Daroxtar

i voted yes before and i'll do it again for the same reasons-
europe has money and we need it.
declan ganley is an economic hitman.
in 30 years i'd like to have the european army protecting me from russia, china and the us.

Traditional

Biffo wont be able to aford the voting sheets or you will have to pay to vote , thats sounds about right , introduce another tax , why not .its going down fast now , a race to the bottom !!

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here. I assume you can lay out a reasoned argument based on how public debt works and present global economic conditions to show why worries about the effect of a No-vote on international confidence in this country are unfounded and baseless?

Just as soon as you show that a No vote is conclusively going to deepen a recession and give the necessary data to back up your point, I'm sure there will be several no voters who would then be happy to debate you. What you are saying (very similarly to Democrates op) is complete heresay and fearmongering, the same thing you've complained about from the No campaign for so long.

O'Morris

cozmik wrote:

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

Too late. I don't know anything about economics so I don't know if there's any truth in the fear-mongering. I think it best to err on the side of caution though.

brianthebard wrote:

Do you believe that Lisbon is related to the economic climate now? If so why did you vote no the last time?
Did you think at the last referendum that the treaty would have an impact on the economy? If so why did you vote no?
What do you think will be gained from voting yes, economically speaking?
What do you think will happen if you vote no, that was different to the last time you voted?

Think of Ireland as a woman from a poor family and the EU as a man from a wealthy and respectable family. The EU proposed marriage to us last year and we rejected it because we thought we could manage alright on our own. Now that our family fortune is quickly disappearing we're going to have to reconsider last year's answer. The next time the proposal is made the answer has to be an unequivocal yes.

nesf wrote:

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here.

I think this might have been one of the main reasons why the other countries decided not to have referendums on the treaty. They knew how damaging it would have been for their own economies if the result had gone the same as it has in Ireland. In fact, I'm sure the French and the Dutch must be worried about how their rejection of the constitution a few years ago has undermined confidence in their countries.

Mena

O'Morris wrote: »

I think this might have been one of the main reasons why the other countries decided not to have referendums on the treaty. They knew how damaging it would have been for their own economies if the result had gone the same as it has in Ireland. In fact, I'm sure the French and the Dutch must be worried about how their rejection of the constitution a few years ago has undermined confidence in their countries.

I thought the main reason the other countries didn't have a referendum on Lisbon was a ) because their constitutions don't require one and b ) the people already elected the Governments to make these decisions on their behalf?

I'm no expert here so feel free to correct me.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Just as soon as you show that a No vote is conclusively going to deepen a recession and give the necessary data to back up your point, I'm sure there will be several no voters who would then be happy to debate you. What you are saying (very similarly to Democrates op) is complete heresay and fearmongering, the same thing you've complained about from the No campaign for so long.

Nope, it's rather simple from an economic point of view and is far from hearsay. As it stands any uncertainty about this country punishes it in the public debt markets. This makes it harder (and most importantly, more expensive) for the Government to borrow money. A No vote breeds uncertainty simply because no one knows what will follow it. We know the consequences of a Yes vote, we do not know the consequences of a No vote, which we should all be able to agree on. Anything that decreases confidence in Ireland (i.e. increases uncertainty) will negatively effect us and our recovery by making borrowing (which we have to do) more expensive and harder to do.

The risks of a No vote in this context are very real. You can still argue that it's worth the risk because of X (where X is whatever reason you put forward to vote No) but the risks can't and shouldn't be dismissed as mere scaremongering.


To be clear:

In the last referendum on Lisbon a No vote wouldn't have significantly impacted our ability to borrow as a country. Anyone telling you that it would was scaremongering. Our tax income at the time was still healthy. At worst it would have negatively effected FDI and even then it wasn't going to have an enormous effect. The problem is that the situation is very much different now. We already are having problems borrowing as a country and are paying far higher interest rates than we did 2-3 years ago. The problem is that we already have a lot of uncertainty associated with us over our ability to pay back loans and adding to this with the markets in such negative form will effect us.

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

A No vote breeds uncertainty simply because no one knows what will follow it.

Will that uncertainty effect all of the EU or will it just be Ireland?

nesf wrote:

We know the consequences of a Yes vote, we do not know the consequences of a No vote, which we should all be able to agree on.

From an economic point of view the best thing would be for the EU to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely. That would send a clear message to the debt markets that it's business as usual in the EU.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

Will that uncertainty effect all of the EU or will it just be Ireland?

Mostly Ireland but it will effect all of the EU. The extent to which this effects individual countries will vary depending on how much uncertainty is already in the market about them.

O'Morris wrote: »

From an economic point of view the best thing would be for the EU to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely. That would send a clear message to the debt markets that it's business as usual in the EU.

Yes and no. There are two sides to this. The first is that the present system isn't perfect especially the need for a new treaty every time they want to change the system. The self-amending element of the Lisbon Treaty is something that will allow greater flexibility in the Union and this is viewed by most groups as necessary. Being able to bring in changes one by one would remove the present need for referendums in Ireland (and potentially other countries) on huge complex documents which is no way to run the EU. Far better if the Irish (and others) could vote on individual elements separately.

The other view is that the EU at present doesn't work terribly badly, yes there's room for improvement but it's still able to get some things done and the EU would be better off focussing its efforts on other matters rather than trying to get a treaty passed.


The two views are linked, essentially the argument about self-amendment is that it will free up more resources for dealing with problems rather than spending time negotiating entire new treaties every few years which is huge waste of time and resources.

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

Mostly Ireland but it will effect all of the EU. The extent to which this effects individual countries will vary.

So other EU countries could suffer if we don't pass this treaty? If that's the case then maybe the governments of the member states of the EU should get together and work out a joint statement on what they plan to do if Ireland votes no a second time. That would help reduce the uncertainty and it would be to the benefit of all of the EU, not just Ireland. It's not fair to those other EU countries that their economic recovery is partly linked to whether we vote yes to a treaty in this country. It's understandable that we should be punished if we don't vote yes but it's not acceptable that other countries should have to pay for our ignorance and selfishness.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

It's understandable that we should be punished if we don't vote yes but it's not acceptable that other countries should have to pay for our ignorance and selfishness.

I wouldn't phrase it that way. We do have a choice in this and we are perfectly within our rights to vote No to this treaty. That this will negatively effect other countries is just how the world works and really is unavoidable and is the reality of treaties like these.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

So other EU countries could suffer if we don't pass this treaty? If that's the case then maybe the governments of the member states of the EU should get together and work out a joint statement on what they plan to do if Ireland votes no a second time.

Were the EU heads of state to prepare such a statement and unless it painted a rosy picture of the future without Lisbon, it would undoubtedly be seized upon by the 'No' side as evidence of "bullying" by the "EU elite".

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

I wouldn't phrase it that way. We do have a choice in this and we are perfectly within our rights to vote No to this treaty. That this will negatively effect other countries is just how the world works and really is unavoidable and is the reality of treaties like these.

I understand that but the EU should still have a backup plan in case the treaty doesn't get passed and they should communicate that plan to the public to help reduce the uncertainty. I think it's very irresponsible of them not to have that plan agreed upon and communicated already.

djpbarry wrote:

Where the EU heads of state to prepare such a statement and unless it painted a rosy picture of the future without Lisbon, it would undoubtedly be seized upon by the 'No' side as evidence of "bullying" by the "EU elite".

It wouldn't be bullying at all. It wouldn't be about imposing an alternative solution over the heads of the Irish electorate. It would just be a simple statement endorsed by the governments of the member states outlining the course of action they intend to follow if the Irish people reject the treaty in the second referendum. If they did that it would massively reduce the uncertainty and it would help restore confidence in the member states.

I can't see the no side having a problem with that or exploiting it in the referendum campaign. And if they do, so what? I think we can all agree that the future of our (the EU's) economies is far more important than whether the Lisbon Treaty gets passed. If the economic argument over Lisbon is put to rest with the joint statement then the debate can focus on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty itself.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

I understand that but the EU should still have a backup plan in case the treaty doesn't get passed and they should communicate that plan to the public to help reduce the uncertainty. I think it's very irresponsible of them not to have that plan agreed upon and communicated already.

I don't disagree, but in reality, no one really is sure what happens without Lisbon. Do we throw away three (or four?) years of painful negotiation or not? It's not as simple as "business as usual".

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I understand that but the EU should still have a backup plan in case the treaty doesn't get passed and they should communicate that plan to the public to help reduce the uncertainty. I think it's very irresponsible of them not to have that plan agreed upon and communicated already.

While I agree with that point, the problem is that Plan A (Lisbon) took a total of nearly seven years to thrash out. If there were a viable 'plan B' that everyone else could agree to, it would have been sucked into plan A anyway. There are times when there simply isn't a plan B in advance, because no such plan can be agreed.

O'Morris wrote: »

It wouldn't be bullying at all. It wouldn't be about imposing an alternative solution over the heads of the Irish electorate. It would just be a simple statement endorsed by the governments of the member states outlining the course of action they intend to follow if the Irish people reject the treaty in the second referendum. If they did that it would massively reduce the uncertainty and it would help restore confidence in the member states.

I can't see the no side having a problem with that or exploiting it in the referendum campaign. And if they do, so what? I think we can all agree that the future of our (the EU's) economies is far more important than whether the Lisbon Treaty gets passed. If the economic argument over Lisbon is put to rest with the joint statement then the debate can focus on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty itself.

I admire your optimism, but from bitter experience of this side of the fence djpbarry is completely right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

I don't disagree, but in reality, no one really is sure what happens without Lisbon.

Of course we can be sure what happens without Lisbon. What happens politically is up to the governments and they have it within their power to clear up the uncertainty. I don't for a second believe that they haven't already discussed this privately among themselves. All they need to do is to make their plans public in order to reduce some of the uncertainty and to restore confidence in the markets, not for Ireland's benefit but for the benefit of the other member states and their economic recovery.

nesf wrote:

Do we throw away three (or four?) years of painful negotiation or not?

I don't know if it's accurate to talk about years of negotiation. It's not as if the people negotiating it were engaged full time in the negotiations. If you were to add the total number of hours spent on negotiating the treaty I'd be surprised if it added it up to more than two or three weeks.

It doesn't make any difference anyway how long was spent negotiating the treaty. Unless it can be proven that the status quo is so unbearable that we have no choice but to accept some kind of new treaty then it's irrelevant how much effort has gone into negotiating the previous one. Preserving the status quo will always be the preferred option for most of us.

nesf wrote:

It's not as simple as "business as usual".

Of course it is as simple as business as usual. It will be business as usual until there is unamimous support for an end to business as usual.

Scofflaw wrote:

While I agree with that point, the problem is that Plan A (Lisbon) took a total of nearly seven years to thrash out. If there were a viable 'plan B' that everyone else could agree to, it would have been sucked into plan A anyway. There are times when there simply isn't a plan B in advance, because no such plan can be agreed.

I'm not talking about a plan B in the sense of an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty. I'm just talking about a simple statement of intent laying out what they plan to do in the short-term in the event of a second no vote. What exactly are they going to do? Are they going to force us to hold a third referendum? Are they going to force the government to ratify the treaty over our heads? Are they planning on expelling Ireland from the EU? Are they going to try to impose sanctions or reduce the handouts? What exactly can they do and what do they intend to do to punish Ireland for voting no? These are all simple questions and a simple answer to each of them would really help us to decide whether it's in our national interest to vote yes in the next referendum.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't know if it's accurate to talk about years of negotiation. It's not as if the people negotiating it were engaged full time in the negotiations. If you were to add the total number of hours spent on negotiating the treaty I'd be surprised if it added it up to more than two or three weeks.

I would be absolutely amazed if that estimate were even anywhere near the case! Civil servants spend a couple of weeks on an interdepartmental internal report...Lisbon involved teams from 27 countries. The draft version took 16 months for a 105-member team, and that was the position in 2003, before the real negotiations started.

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not talking about a plan B in the sense of an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty. I'm just talking about a simple statement of intent laying out what they plan to do in the short-term in the event of a second no vote. What exactly are they going to do? Are they going to force us to hold a third referendum? Are they going to force the government to ratify the treaty over our heads? Are they planning on expelling Ireland from the EU? Are they going to try to impose sanctions or reduce the handouts? What exactly can they do and what do they intend to do to punish Ireland for voting no? These are all simple questions and a simple answer to each of them would really help us to decide whether it's in our national interest to vote yes in the next referendum.

Even I can answer most of those, bar the first and last...respectively, they can't, they can't, they can't, and they can't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

It doesn't make any difference anyway how long was spent negotiating the treaty. Unless it can be proven that the status quo is so unbearable that we have no choice but to accept some kind of new treaty then it's irrelevant how much effort has gone into negotiating the previous one. Preserving the status quo will always be the preferred option for most of us.

Surely the argument should go that preserving the status quo should only be the preferred option if the new proposed treaty is worse?

Rb

It will be such a shame if this document gets pushed through the second time around due to the state of the country and more scaremongering.

Personally, they need not bother revising the text even minutely, I will be voting no irregardless of what is put before us and to be quite honest, no longer care of any consequence the Yes side have tried to scare us with.

Kama

I will be voting no irregardless of what is put before us

So much for the 'free kittens' clause...

But srsly, 'No' regardless? I guess there are some people just like the words 'Yes' or 'No', but in general I kinda like the idea of knowing what they actually imply.

Surely the argument should go that preserving the status quo should only be the preferred option if the new proposed treaty is worse?

A conservative position is that a new option is untested, and therefore has greater risk, while the status quo may have disadvantages, but we are aware of them. Better the Devil you know, etc.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

A conservative position is that a new option is untested, and therefore has greater risk, while the status quo may have disadvantages, but we are aware of them. Better the Devil you know, etc.

On the other hand, it would be fair to say that a Yes, while it brings change for the EU, does not bring change for Ireland's relationship with the EU, whereas a No does.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

Just as soon as you show that a No vote is conclusively going to deepen a recession and give the necessary data to back up your point, I'm sure there will be several no voters who would then be happy to debate you. What you are saying (very similarly to Democrates op) is complete heresay and fearmongering, the same thing you've complained about from the No campaign for so long.

Is changing your opinion after careful consideration, wrong?

Methinks O'Morris is being mischievous.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Methinks O'Morris is being mischievous.

Never....



Edit: Though from his position, the argument makes perfect sense (not meant condescending, if I preferred the status quo to the Treaty and thought that a No vote would ensure the status quo, I'd agree with him).

View

Kama wrote: »

A conservative position is that a new option is untested, and therefore has greater risk, while the status quo may have disadvantages, but we are aware of them. Better the Devil you know, etc.

The "Better the Devil you know..." arguement doesn't really hold water, as - apart from Government Ministers, some Civil Servants, lawyers and a few others who have practical experience of working at EU level - most people have little knowledge how the EU's institutions work on a day-to-day basis or, for that matter, what is in the existing (post-Nice) Treaties. Therefore it is extremely difficult for people to decide on an objective (i.e. dispassionate) basis if the existing Nice situation is something they agree with, much less the proposed Lisbon situation.

Also had we adopted that conservative position circa 1920, we'd all still be part of the UK! :eek:

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

I would be absolutely amazed if that estimate were even anywhere near the case! Civil servants spend a couple of weeks on an interdepartmental internal report...Lisbon involved teams from 27 countries. The draft version took 16 months for a 105-member team, and that was the position in 2003, before the real negotiations started.

But the negotiations themselves were not carried out by the civil servants. The governments did the negotiation of the treaty.

Scofflaw wrote:

Even I can answer most of those, bar the first and last...respectively, they can't, they can't, they can't, and they can't.

I could answer them as well. The question is whether the average man on the street would be able to answer them. And more importantly, will he be encouraged to ask himself those questions by the yes side during the course of the referendum campaign? And will he be given a straight answer if he does ask them? Based on the pro-treaty side's reaction after the last referendum I have a feeling the answer is yes to the former and no to the latter.

This is why I think it's important that our own government and the other EU governments make public what they intend to do in the short-term if we don't vote the right way. We can't afford to just settle for speculation on the likely consequences of our decision. If the EU are planning to do bad things to us if we vote no then we should be told about it in advance. The yes side would benefit much more from this than the other side would as they would then have something more substantial to back up the scare-mongering.

nesf wrote:

Surely the argument should go that preserving the status quo should only be the preferred option if the new proposed treaty is worse?

Of course. The Lisbon Treaty is worse than the status quo so it's a hypothetical question but if it was a better deal for Ireland than the status quo then the Lisbon treaty would be the preferred option.

K-9 wrote:

Methinks O'Morris is being mischievous.

Absolutely not. I'm as anti-Lisbon (both the treaty and the city) now as I ever was. I'm still opposed in principle to any further diminution of our sovereignty. The only reason I'm voting yes the next time around is because I'm afraid of what will happen to the economy if we return a second no vote. I honestly don't know enough about economics to know whether there's any truth in the scare-mongering. I think the economy should be our highest priority at this point though so I'm prepared to err on the side of caution.

nesf wrote:

Edit: Though from his position, the argument makes perfect sense (not meant condescending, if I preferred the status quo to the Treaty and thought that a No vote would ensure the status quo, I'd agree with him).

What about the economic argument though? Aside from the political question of whether the Lisbon Treaty is good for Ireland, don't you see the economic benefit for all of the EU of having the uncertainty removed from the debate? Wouldn't clarification about the EU's short-term future in the event of a second no vote reassure the markets that the EU is not likely to be collapse at the end of 2009?

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

Personally, they need not bother revising the text even minutely, I will be voting no irregardless of what is put before us and to be quite honest, no longer care of any consequence the Yes side have tried to scare us with.

I couldn't have dreamed up a more perfect example of what's wrong with democracy.

View wrote: »

The "Better the Devil you know..." arguement doesn't really hold water, as - apart from Government Ministers, some Civil Servants, lawyers and a few others who have practical experience of working at EU level - most people have little knowledge how the EU's institutions work on a day-to-day basis or, for that matter, what is in the existing (post-Nice) Treaties. Therefore it is extremely difficult for people to decide on an objective (i.e. dispassionate) basis if the existing Nice situation is something they agree with, much less the proposed Lisbon situation.

A compelling argument for leaving such decisions to people who do understand (and care about) the consequences of their decisions, no?

Elmo

I will either vote no again or spoil my vote.

Why vote no again?

1. After asking us to vote again for nice the European leaders promised to take Europe to the people, to let European citizen know what they are doing in Europe. This has not been provided, and no setting up a website does not go far enough.
2. The EU Commissioners are not elected yet all of them have political views regardless of nationality. Charlie McCreevy is a FF Commissioner and is bais in his position. It was never about losing a Commissioner for me it was about a democratically elected commissioner. Each EU country could have a rotating commissioners with elected junior commissioners coming from the EU countries with out Commissioners.
3. The laxed regulation on Banking and other sectors of society have been cause by the moving of the EU from Social Democrats to Neo-Liberalist. Lobbist now have more power in Europe then the people.

I hope the next treaty will be brought to all of the people of Europe and that Europe can accept sovering national states no matter of size either population or area.