If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

BlitzKrieg

This is another example of how the ECJ cannot be trusted to abide by agreements pursuant to international law insofar as it pertains to the UN

According to the press release (which obviously you will take with a grain of salt http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp08/aff/cp080060en.pdf) it seems the ECJ's ruling was not that they werent to abide by the UN's regulation, but how it had been implemented had not made the necessary procautions for rights upheld by the EU

The Court further concludes that the freezing of funds constitutes an unjustified restriction of Mr Kadi’s right to property.
The Court considers that the restrictive measures imposed by the regulation constitute restrictions of that right which could, in principle, be justified. It notes that the importance of the aims pursued by the regulation is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some persons, and emphasises that the competent national authorities may unfreeze the funds necessary to cover basic expenses (payment of rent, medical expenses etc.).
The Court considers, however, that the regulation in question was adopted without furnishing any guarantee enabling Mr Kadi to put his case to the competent authorities. Such a gurantee was, however, necessary in order to ensure respect for his right to property, having regard to the general application and continuation of the freezing measures affecting him.

The court continued to impose the terms of the original ruling for 3 months, to allow for the agreement to be reapplied with the necessary changes as they had outlined.

Nonetheless, the Court recognises that annulling the regulation with immediate effect would be capable of seriously and irreversibly prejudicing the effectiveness of the restrictive measures, because in the period before the regulation is replaced, the person and entity concerned might take steps to prevent measures freezing funds from being applied to them again. Moreover, the Court notes that it is conceivable that, on the merits of the case, the imposition of those measures on Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat may all the same prove to be justified. As a result, the Court maintains the effects of the regulation for a period of no more than three months running from today, in order to allow the Council to remedy the infringements found.

Keynesianism doesn't work. Look at Japan's lost decade for example.

I'd be honest and say my knowledge of economics stopped at the leaving cert, though I do have a somewhat simple grasp of keynesiansim. Stating it doesnt work as an argument is faulty at best at worst its a call that the majority of western states are doomed to failure, essentially moving the argument away from issues with the EU to the discussion of macro economic theory, there's an economic forum first of all. Second of all it doesnt remove the issue that whether it was doomed to failure or not the celtic tiger was brought around with the support of the EU to the Irish infrastructure and upskilling of our workforce.

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And what evidence do you have that the boom of the 1990's was because of the EU?

I've never claimed that; however, you're quite happy to claim the opposite effect so put some evidence showing some plausible causal link between Ireland's poor performance in the 70s and 80s forward or withdraw the claim. You're treading a very thin line here, either back up your statements or don't post here.

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Keynesianism doesn't work. Look at Japan's lost decade for example.

Eh, the structural funding argument isn't based on Keynesianism but the early neo-classical growth theory based on the work of Solow et al.

Seriously if you're going to argue against something at least know what you're arguing against!

FutureTaoiseach

nesf wrote: »

I've never claimed that; however, you're quite happy to claim the opposite effect so put some evidence showing some plausible causal link between Ireland's poor performance in the 70s and 80s forward or withdraw the claim. You're treading a very thin line here, either back up your statements or don't post here.

For the umpteenth time - I have never claimed there was an opposite effect. What I have done is state that if there is no causal link between the Spanish yes vote and their recession, then neither is there one between our potential yes vote and an economic recovery. It seems those of us on the no side are expected to roll over when IBEC comes out with stuff like this:

Brendan Butler, IBEC wrote:

At a time of great economic turbulence a question mark hangs over our reputation and our relationship with Europe. A yes vote is an essential step on the road to economic recovery and will send a very positive signal to our European and international partners. A yes vote is an essential step on the road to economic recovery and will send a very positive signal to our European and international partners.

Now, when I made this point before I was castigated by mods who told me that it's not comparable because the EU Constitution that the Spanish voted for never came into force. But that is to take too simplistic an analysis of the situation. I am addressing this issue from the perspective of the claims by IBEC and others on the yes campaign that our economic woes are due in part to reputational damage from voting no. That claim implies a reputational link to economic growth with respect to being supportive of further European integration. Their claim is not that voting yes will benefit the economy because of specific provisions in the Treaty. Rather, they are claiming we will recover economically from voting yes because of a boost to what they call our "reputation". In bringing up reputation, they make it fair game, in my opinion, to bring up the experience of economies that voting yes to the 90% identical EU Constitution. Otherwise, we on the no side are being held to a different standard.

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

For the umpteenth time - I have never claimed there was an opposite effect. What I have done is state that if there is no causal link between the Spanish yes vote and their recession, then neither is there one between our potential yes vote and an economic recovery.

Which makes no sense and repeating it over and over won't change this.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Otherwise, we on the no side are being held to a different standard.

People are expected to back up their statements. You said:

I find it ironic that we are expected to credit the EU with the Celtic Tiger, but not hold them partly responsible for the other 2/3rds of our time as a member when we had mass unemployment and mass-emigration.

This is making it a claim that the latter is as plausible as the former, there is some evidence for the former but rarely is the EU held up as the primary cause of the Celtic Tiger, but there is no evidence for the latter. You are being asked to provide evidence to back up claims like this or retract them.


You have been banned twice from here already. The next ban will be permanent and if you don't stop throwing out unsubstantiated claims and repeating claims like the causal link one that ban will come sooner rather than later.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What I have done is state that if there is no causal link between the Spanish yes vote and their recession, then neither is there one between our potential yes vote and an economic recovery.

There would be no link because, eh, one would be a Yes vote on a Treaty that did not come into force and.................................

K-9

Look, the EU was obviously an important part in our Economic recovery. Us being members was an advantage over not being a member and the funds helped.

The same thing applied during the bad years, but we where an economic basket case. WE finally got our house in order.

When the house was in order, we could take full advantage of being a EU member.

I can see your point, but you take what is a valid point and argue the direct opposite.

It is strawmanning at its very best!

hatrickpatrick

Why are we once again debating the merits of EU membership?

Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is NOT rejecting the concept of the EU in its current form.

I'm getting so bored of people saying things like "either vote yes or leave the EU". It's ridiculous.

If Ireland brought in some new laws which you fundamentally disagreed with, would you leave the country or stay behind and campaign against them? No way in hell would I leave, personally, that's just giving up far too easily. If the EU is truly democratic, then the people should have control over its "direction". Rejecting a change of system or management doesn't mean you reject the entire organization!

So again:
Opinion on Lisbon =/= opinion on EU membership.

tolosenc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why are we once again debating the merits of EU membership?

Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is NOT rejecting the concept of the EU in its current form.

I'm getting so bored of people saying things like "either vote yes or leave the EU". It's ridiculous.

If Ireland brought in some new laws which you fundamentally disagreed with, would you leave the country or stay behind and campaign against them? No way in hell would I leave, personally, that's just giving up far too easily. If the EU is truly democratic, then the people should have control over its "direction". Rejecting a change of system or management doesn't mean you reject the entire organization!

So again:
Opinion on Lisbon =/= opinion on EU membership.

We are voting on, essentially, whether or not we wish to be part of an EU as set out by the Treaty of Lisbon.

This is the direction the EU will take, as it is the will of the other members..

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why are we once again debating the merits of EU membership?

Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is NOT rejecting the concept of the EU in its current form.

I'm getting so bored of people saying things like "either vote yes or leave the EU". It's ridiculous.

If Ireland brought in some new laws which you fundamentally disagreed with, would you leave the country or stay behind and campaign against them? No way in hell would I leave, personally, that's just giving up far too easily. If the EU is truly democratic, then the people should have control over its "direction". Rejecting a change of system or management doesn't mean you reject the entire organization!

So again:
Opinion on Lisbon =/= opinion on EU membership.

We aren't. We somehow got to a "because the EU was good for us in the good times it therefore must have been bad for us during the bad times" point.

worldrepublic

I think if we vote no again it will provide other forms of opposition, across Europe, with new impetus. If Europe goes down the road of "booting out" member states then that would in actual fact represent the greatest threat to Europe: ergo, they won't go down that road! More realistically a new set negotiations will commence and Ireland will either be asked to have a Lisbon III, or to vote on some entirely new form of change.

I also think it is damaging to the yes side to keep suggesting that a second No result would mean a kind of "end times" scenario for Ireland. The more scared people get, the more cautious and even conservative they get? In fairness, it is a tactic Fianna Fail are also using in relation to Lisbon II -but in my opinion, its too risky by far. I hope the government will enter into a proper debate soon on radio and TV. I live in a fairly large urban centre and some people are reporting that they are getting "no to Lisbon" pamphlets (or in some cases larger documents/newspapers -not Sinn Fein though). Time is running out...

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

... I also think it is damaging to the yes side to keep suggesting that a second No result would mean a kind of "end times" scenario for Ireland...

Who is suggesting that?

SkepticOne

I think most likely if there's a No, they'll try to do a "constitution" on it and slip an obfuscated version of Lisbon into a new Treaty.

hatrickpatrick

^ So how many times do the people of Europe, those the EU is supposed to be SERVING, have to tell these people "no" before they take the damn hint and drop it?

K-9

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think most likely if there's a No, they'll try to do a "constitution" on it and slip an obfuscated version of Lisbon into a new Treaty.

Suppose it will be 70/80% of the Constitution then! :rolleyes: