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

Scofflaw

BluntGuy wrote: »

Indeed.

A truly pathetic attempt to exempt himself from any blame for the economic disaster.

As if he hadn't been Minister for Finance through half the bubble years, and presided over some of the biggest budget giveaways in Irish history.

I don't know whether people have seen this - Irish income tax rates declined hugely under Cowen. I appreciate we all like that, but replacing income tax with the property taxes on a property bubble was never exactly sensible or sustainable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Haven't seen them either. Have seen references to a Yes vote In Spain on a Constitution that never came into place, causing unemployment though!

I'm getting confused, I think I've been had!

The other poster who used it was your good self!

BluntGuy wrote:

The yes side are frustrating me though. People are getting won over with idiotic arguments like "we have to remain at the heart of Europe" - complete fallacy, since we were never at the heart of Europe and never will be, the economic downturn has also been falsely used as a scare tactic, despite the fact that after Spain ratified the treaty their unemployment soared (it has nothing to do with the treaty, it's just that there is NO correlelation between not ratifiying and poor economic performance) and this false sense of "owing" it to the EU to vote yes.

From: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055641478

BluntGuy wrote:

Since demanding references is a running theme in this thread, I demand some references! I have actually never seen any to be pretty honest.

Given the lateness of the hour of that post I presume you forgot about it.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

The Irish economyand our population of 1% of europe should not matter,however the proponents of a yes vote appear to use any tool available to secure a yes vote.

It is all but impossible to debate whether or not the responsibility of giving a democratic tag to this treaty is for the betterment of Europe as a whole. Instead it is entirely centered around disproving and riducling the previous 'no' vote.

I understand this treaty does not confer anything additional to Ireland, in summary we are loosing. However is it democratically justifiable that we should be represented above our 1% of the population and if so at whose expense?

I think to argue on these grounds is to much like being honest and God forbid trusting the electorate to do the right thing. However the advocates of the 'yes' vote are so self serving and ingrained with manipulating the electorate as evidenced by the management of our economy that the whole debacle is hardly surprising.

Today on Newstalk the dissenting Fianna Fail TD let it slip that he believe's the IMF are on their way anyway. If that is the 'behind the scenes' view in the back benches of Fianna Fail a 'yes' vote will make little or no difference to the economy or our country as it will essentially be foreign owned.

I think it is curious that the majority of yes campaigners come from groups that can legally take money away from you. Whereas the 'no' groups appear to be either independently weathy or poor. Does anyone agree with that generalisation?

No. In fact, I would say it's absurd.

negatively,
Scofflaw

BluntGuy

rumour wrote: »

I understand this treaty does not confer anything additional to Ireland, in summary we are loosing. However is it democratically justifiable that we should be represented above our 1% of the population and if so at whose expense?

We're already over-represented, the treaty would bring us closer to having the representation of 1%. So, in a sense, that is more democratic...

However, it completely goes against typical "yes" side arguments. Take Labour's website for a quick example:

It ensures that small countries like Ireland will continue to enjoy a disproportionate weight within the Council and the Parliament.

They have this under "more democractic". :rolleyes:

In actual fact, voting "no" will allow us to have a greater amount of disproportionate voting weight. So their point is immaterial.

ei.sdraob

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I would agree with you. personnally the economic consequences would be a very minor element in my opinion on Lisbon.

But when you consider that a large number of posters see (or want to see) the EU as a purely economic organisation, you can understand how it becomes the lynchpin of all issues.

While I don't like the idea of trying to predict the future, since its something thats hard to backup by evidence and involves deduction of events starting from current facts/state/variables

I would have to disagree with you

Lisbon could have a major economic impact due to the common energy policy point.

I will try to back my claim by references in order to try to convince any readers of this thread as to why I consider this point from Lisbon Treaty so important

Energy policy is one of the big failures of the European Union in the last fifty years, particularly bearing in mind that we started out as a coal and steel community. But our growing dependence on Russia is going to increase the pressure for a common energy policy, to improve the internal grids and have shared arrangements within the European Union," Mr. Bruton said.

The EU executive has been instrumental in developing a common energy policy in the past three years. The policy move gained political momentum after January 2006 when Russia first cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, affecting EU consumers.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2009/gb2009061_310444.htm

In 2004, the European Union depended on Russia for 29% of its natural gas consumption and
26% of its oil.1 However, this figure conceals the fact that this dependence is unequally
distributed. Some EU countries, many of them in central and eastern Europe, are dependent on
Russia for most or all of the oil and natural gas they consume. For example, the Baltic states are
entirely dependent on Russia for natural gas. Non-EU countries bordering Russia are also
overwhelmingly or entirely dependent on Russian oil and natural gas.2 Moreover, EU countries
are likely to become more dependent on natural gas supplied by Russia in the future, as deposits
in the North Sea decline. In 2006, 42% of the EU’s natural gas imports came from Russia and
33% of its oil imports.3

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34261.pdf


Now the above makes very very concerned, here we have the EU being dependent on a state which took a turn for the worse (speaking from personal experience of traveling there) and is increasingly undemocratic and controlled by one man (V. Putin) and his whims

Here we have a country which is in position to wreck the EU economy at a turn of a tap

BlitzKrieg

sorry my post wasnt particulary clear, I meant economic issues were not a major pull factor for me to vote in either way. I didnt mean they were not an element of the Treaty, I understood how big of an impact the common energy policy is, but I wouldnt consider the economic effect of it as the biggest pull factor me. Rather in an almost hippie like moment I would have more interest in the renewable energy/political/ecological consequences of the policy then the economic

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

No. In fact, I would say it's absurd.

negatively,
Scofflaw

Hardly absurd, I see no other immediate beneficiary to this treaty other than those who can extract taxes and that applies all accross europe. It is of course more accutely obvious in Ireland as there will soon be no money to pay for a bloated public sector with their bloated salaries.

Of course setting aside a reasoned intellectual argument debating the pros and cons (which takes account of all we know from history) of trying to create the super state europe, if we all vote yes there is a chance we can beg for some more money. I wonder where that money if it ever comes, will be distributed?

ei.sdraob

I see i misunderstood so @BlitzKrieg

on the bright side it made me dig out some reading material which I might start a thread on come closer to the election

energy spans both economic and political concerns I need to gather me taught s and do more reading on this vital point

rumour wrote: »

Hardly absurd, I see no other immediate beneficiary to this treaty other than those who can extract taxes and that applies all accross europe. It is of course more accutely obvious in Ireland as there will soon be no money to pay for a bloated public sector with their bloated salaries.

Of course setting aside a reasoned intellectual argument debating the pros and cons (which takes account of all we know from history) of trying to create the super state europe, if we all vote yes there is a chance we can beg for some more money. I wonder where that money if it ever comes, will be distributed?

i don't know where the money would go, we will remain a "leecher" of EU funds for quite a while, but farmers seem to have done and continued to make a nice living from EU

and then theres money from ECB, they can quite literally print as much as they want (tho printing too much is bad thing)

-

rumour

BluntGuy wrote: »

We're already over-represented, the treaty would bring us closer to having the representation of 1%. So, in a sense, that is more democratic...

However, it completely goes against typical "yes" side arguments. Take Labour's website for a quick example:



They have this under "more democractic". :rolleyes:

In actual fact, voting "no" will allow us to have a greater amount of disproportionate voting weight. So their point is immaterial.

Thank you, this is the most frustrating part of debate surrounding this Treaty. The YES proponents have all the moral fibre of an estate agent at the height of the boom, a one bedroom shoe box is suddenly a luxurious studio appartment offering stunning views and quick access to the city centre. Location Mullingar.

Currently it is actually the 'yes' campaign that would put me off voting yes, whiy should I support people who manipulate and decieve. Should I be one of those people?

rumour

ei.sdraob wrote: »

energy spans both economic and political concerns I need to gather me taught s and do more reading on this vital point

-

I have followed this particular topic for years. From an Irish perspective I think we have to vote 'yes' due to this particular issue alone. This is not because we are not capabe of becoming self sufficient it is because our political class will not face up to responsibilities and continually verify that this is true.

Continually wind power is deemed not adequate, unions are actually in the process of frustrating developement in this area. Nuclear power is not an option but we will buy it from someone else. The corrib gas field was due to be operational in 2002 powering gas stations in Dublin which i believe have been built, well we know where this is. Twenty people can jeopardise the nation and politicians of both sides do not act in the national interest(spinless). Furthermore instead we built a pipeline to Northrn Ireland which leads all the way back to Russia. That was good strategic thinking!

Europe may well protect us, at least we stand a better chance of maintaining a supply. That said our ability to become self sufficient is being hampered by a complete lack of strategic thinking and the will to carry it out. I guess we should expect nothing better from school teachers and solictors.

Such is the prevailing morally bankrupt state of Irish politics one can only hope that the next generation will do a better job.

BluntGuy

Spirit Of Ireland have an excellent proposal for energy self-sufficiency, involving wind power and reservoirs, which could ultimately lead to selling energy to Europe.

Lisbon isn't needed for this.

If the aim of voting "yes" to Lisbon on this proposal is just to get Europe to bail us out when it comes to energy needs, then there's a serious problem with how we operate. Getting Europe involved in this manner won't solve the problem.

What would be really nice o' course with regards oil and energy, is if we could turn back time and stop that treacherous, scumbag Bertie and co. selling off our valuable gas assets for peanuts without so much as a simple stake in the venture.

ei.sdraob

@rummor I wholeheartedly agree with you, I worked in a power generation for a short while here in Ireland and seen energy conundrum this country is in firsthand, I can go on and on. the Irish energy story it can all be summarized in one word

Failure

BluntGuy wrote: »

Spirit Of Ireland have an excellent proposal for energy self-sufficiency, involving wind power and reservoirs, which could ultimately lead to selling energy to Europe.

Lisbon isn't needed for this.

When and if this project is actually build and Ireland ...

I have seen the Spirit of Ireland proposal and hope the best to them but

I am very cynical, sorry, Ill believe it once its build and if its build.


I have been at Turlough Hill and understand and seen the concept of pumped storage at work humming away few feet from me (build by the Germans of course ), i have also been at several of ESBs powerplants

some figures for ya:
* Turlough_Hill - generates about 300MW peak for short periods
* Ireland uses max 4900MW peak (http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemrecords/)
* Base load demand is in high 3xxx MW range ( http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/ )
* Max wind generated to date - 900MW
* Some days like today wind power is down to feck all 40MW at the time of this posting (http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/)
* Moneypoint is Irelands largest powerplant is @ 1000MW, burns a mountain of coal


windpower also requires a good grid, something that is very expensive and people dont want pylons in their backyards
to be 100% windpower sufficient we would need 5x Spirit of Ireland sized storage dams and 10x the windmills we have now as well as a huge investment in the grid
all at a time when the country is bankrupt and no business would undertake such an expensive exercise
oh and seawater is highly corrosive so it wont be cheap to run


we are talking about a project in the range of 100-150 billion yoyo, in case you haven't noticed we just signed away 90billion to NAMA and dozen billion to banks, and are borrowing few dozen billion a year on top

i sure hope we one day will become energy independent, but don't get your hopes up, face reality, until that day comes Lisbon is out best bet in the energy game (unless we go nuclear but that would take about a decade to build and the irish have a problem with nuclear energy, mind you a % of the energy powering your pc in front of you is powered by nuclear from across the Irish sea)

BluntGuy wrote: »

If the aim of voting "yes" to Lisbon on this proposal is just to get Europe to bail us out when it comes to energy needs, then there's a serious problem with how we operate. Getting Europe involved in this manner won't solve the problem.

What would be really nice o' course with regards oil and energy, is if we could turn back time and stop that treacherous, scumbag Bertie and co. selling off our valuable gas assets for peanuts without so much as a simple stake in the venture.

That is exactly the aim of Lisbon energy policy, beside banding together when bargaining for energy contracts

it also means if Russia decides to cut of supplies all the countries pool together their resources

you are also forgetting that a cut in energy supplies would affect the whole EU economy and us directly and indirectly (whether we have gone 100% green or not)

/

BluntGuy

If you've ever seen their presentation, you'll understand how they can get 80% energy independence for a cost of €10 billion and the financing model that would be used. They cover all your concerns in it - including grid upgrades etc. Dunno where you got 100 - 150 billion from.

I think their presentation may have been uploaded to YouTube. If I find it, I'll link it.

However, the will, neither politically nor from the Irish people is there to do this, so this project will never take off.

Also, we haven't given away the 60 or 70 billion euro to SCAMA just yet. Hopefully that dreadful scheme will fall apart before we get to September legislation time.

The energy policy is admittedly one of Lisbon's better ideas. But I don't think the motivation behind it is correct. We can and should invest in renewables as Spirit Of Ireland are suggesting. It won't be some cosy little bailout from Europe if we start struggling, they'll want something in return.

ei.sdraob

why do both options have to be mutually exclusive?

note that I said I like the idea of massive pumped storage, but being a realist and having worked in the industry I cant tell you it either would never happen or would take a very looong time

secondly the 10billion figure they came up with is for 1000MW facility, and do note that here in Ireland these things never come on budget, neither have a detailed breakdown of the costs have been provided for further examination with this plan so this figure of their could be plucked out of thin air for all i know

since we use quite a bit more than 1000MW in this country with a peak of almost 5 times that and base daytime load of about 4x that, multiply your costs by 5 (maybe even more if you need extra storage since as we know wind might not blow for a few days or be too strong)

we would have to close down all other fuel plants in country, thats a few hundred million down

we have to build ~10x more windmills than we have now (remember peak now achieved by all windmills in country is 900MW) it works out about 1.5 million per MW (im not counting maintenance/installation costs) when it comes to windmills so we are talking about easily another 10 billion for new windmills

all these windmills would have to be connected to the grid, which wasnt designed for this type of generation, i dont have figures but this would take more billions and years to build as people do not want high voltage lines in their areas


yes I would rather see the money go to renewable power than NAMA but lets be realistic, saving developers and banks is more important than saving the country , and you and I know infrastructure development on the proposed scale would never happen here for so many silly reasons

not to mention if it is ever build it would take better part of a decade, while still relying on russia and other states for energy

so once again I dont see why these things have to be mutually exclusive, voting Lisbon wont cost us billions and is only few weeks away



i also have another point to make again which you havent addressed, assuming ireland ever becomes 100% energy sufficient, and russia does switch its taps destroying the economies of other eu states, do you honestly think that wont impact us?

BluntGuy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i also have another point to make again which you havent addressed, assuming ireland ever becomes 100% energy sufficient, and russia does switch its taps destroying the economies of other eu states, do you honestly think that wont impact us?

It sure would, whether within the treaty or without the treaty.

However, we would be able to sell energy to the rest of Europe completely on our own terms, which would be to the benefit of us. As part of a common energy policy, if there was such a crisis, we would be obliged to provide energy to other member states which is all very friendly and nice, but of less economic benefit.

ei.sdraob

BluntGuy wrote: »

It sure would, whether within the treaty or without the treaty.

However, we would be able to sell energy to the rest of Europe completely on our own terms, which would be to the benefit of us. As part of a common energy policy, if there was such a crisis, we would be obliged to provide energy to other member states which is all very friendly and nice, but of less economic benefit.

please show me the figures and hard facts so I can do the sums

I don't see this covering our energy needs never mind exporting to Europe, btw exporting requires building interconnectors which are **** expensive

the one being proposed and build by Eirgird by 2012 costs north of 100 million for a 500MW cable

keep them 2 figures in mind; irish peak demand is close to 10x that, thats a cable to UK, continent is alot farther, european demand is close to 1000x that

now do you see why im being skeptical, knowing the info i presented in the last few posts, i don't see how the numbers add up, do you understand why I want to see more figures to do the maths?


so once again lets be realistic here and work with the facts and figures we have




heres one quote you should keep in mind from a fellow boardsie
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60178122&postcount=22

This is technically feasible as it is proven technology IMHO. The problem is the objections and political point-scoring. A pathetic gas pipeline can cause social chaos in Mayo, what do you think 10 hoover dams will cause? Without a military escort instructed to shoot protesters on sight this will never fly in this stupid country of ours. Ironically the same protesters will drive away in their polluting SUV's and land rovers.

also this here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60151768&postcount=12


the whole spirit of Ireland site and engineers Ireland presentation (i am a member) is wishy washy with big words and not many numbers, anyways we should really start a separate thread on this as i can go on an on

ei.sdraob

seems alot of people are looking and asking for figures as well

so far there has been alot of media coverage but little in the way of substance from this project

this here is very interesting and full of math

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/hot-air-over-wind-energy-proposals-1735760.html

Hot air over wind energy proposals
To great media fanfare a group called 'Spirit of Ireland' launched their proposal for wind energy in Ireland along the lines suggested by Professor Igor Shvets last December. They propose that wind, along with pumped storage of water, could provide all of our electricity needs as well as much more for export. I wish to make a measured response.

As their advertisements and their website are short on numbers, I have to rely on Prof Svets' figures and assume that is what is now being proposed.

The proposal is to install 6900MW of wind generators which, given a load factor of 35pc, would provide an average of about 2400MW of electricity. Our requirement can easily be 5000MW, so the proposal would provide less than half of this.

For pumped storage, reservoirs of a total area of 2km by 2km with a depth of 20m and a height of 250m above sea level are proposed. Using first-year college physics, one can calculate that this would only provide 5000MW of electricity for less than 11 hours; not very useful if we have calm weather for a week or more.

Using EirGrid's figures, wind only provided a negligible 60MW on average for six days between September 23-28 last winter, which is less than 5pc of the installed wind capacity. To suffice in this situation, 20 times the proposed pumped storage would be required; quite impractical and enormously expensive.

If, when the wind fails, we were to rely on interconnectors to the UK and France, we would need to build 10 of the type now being proposed (€550m each). This always presupposes electricity is available from these countries and the cost is likely to be very high.

The proposal is obviously very simplistic and very impractical; to say that it could be achieved in five years is mind boggling. While we are right to consider sustainable sources, renewables alone will not solve our energy problems. We are on a dangerous road led largely by the Green Party.

Our energy problems will become so serious we must urgently consider all options, including renewables, strict conservation measures, nuclear power and the role of the dwindling fossil fuels (though they have carbon dioxide emissions).

Philip W Walton
Emeritus Professor
of Applied Physics
NUI, Galway

-

Red Sleeping Beauty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Spare a thought for all the poor people bullied into voting "no" last time.

Hi, I wasn't bullied into voting no. Cheers.

ei.sdraob

hmm as suspected something smells fishy

heres even more maths about this project

http://www.sliabh.net/?p=1632

x MarK x

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I dont like the guy, but for reasons that have nothing to do with his accent or background (we were having a laugh btw dont take things seriously)


some of the reasons are:
* shady military connections
* no accountability or info on the millions of euro spend campaigning
* not answering my very simple questions in galway few months back

And our governments financial credibility is rock solid. A lot o shady characters too, but you trust them, hhmmmmm.

x MarK x

Martin 2 wrote: »

A very provocative and misleading thread title, Ireland is not being bullied into passing Lisbon


Rubbish. We voted no, were told to vote again. If we vote yes, do you think theres any chance we'll be asked again? Thats bullying. End of.

ei.sdraob

x MarK x wrote: »

And our governments financial credibility is rock solid. A lot o shady characters too, but you trust them, hhmmmmm.

who said I trust them?

why dont you go thru my posts an see how many times i criticized the Greens and FF

but if you must ask. Ganley is down there at the very bottom of the political scale the lowest of the low, i would listen to SF before I would listen to him again! and that says a lot

my reasons for voting for Lisbon encompass several issues, hell i spent the better part of last few posts discussing the energy point

what discussion have you offered?? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Hi, I wasn't bullied into voting no. Cheers.

Nobody was, or will be, bullied into voting any particular way, or even at all. That's the joy of the public secret ballot. Any talk of "bullying" in the context of an Irish referendum is fanciful rhetoric.

x MarK x wrote: »

Rubbish. We voted no, were told to vote again. If we vote yes, do you think theres any chance we'll be asked again? Thats bullying. End of.

Only if you invent from scratch your own definition of "bullying". I'd rather you stuck to dictionary definitions of words when posting in this forum.

Martin 2

x MarK x wrote: »

Martin 2 wrote: »

A very provocative and misleading thread title, Ireland is not being bullied into passing Lisbon

x MarK x
Rubbish. We voted no, were told to vote again. If we vote yes, do you think theres any chance we'll be asked again? Thats bullying. End of.

If you're going to quote from page 1 of the thread (over 2 weeks ago) have the decency to include the complete sentence, that is:

A very provocative and misleading thread title, Ireland is not being bullied into passing Lisbon, some people may feel bullied but generally I think there's a lot of debate and discussion happening and most people will decide one way or another based on what's best for them, the country and the EU (not necessarily in that order).

We did elect a 'pro-EU' government whose policy is to ratify the Lisbon treaty, it is their right under our constitution to have a second referendum and it is our right to reject it again... there will be nobody holding a gun to your head at the polling booth.

ei.sdraob

Martin 2 wrote: »

there will be nobody holding a gun to your head

[offtopic] its ok a certain party on the NO side has no issue with guns and murder > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055641278 [/offtopic]

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

[offtopic] its ok a certain party on the NO side has no issue with guns and murder > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055641278 [/offtopic]

Don't go there.

ei.sdraob

your right, that was a below the waist punch / observation

i shouldnt be sinking to that level when it comes to Lisbon

couldn't resist making it, theres a bit of a dark political humor to it

worldrepublic

BluntGuy wrote: »

It sure would, whether within the treaty or without the treaty.

However, we would be able to sell energy to the rest of Europe completely on our own terms, which would be to the benefit of us. As part of a common energy policy, if there was such a crisis, we would be obliged to provide energy to other member states which is all very friendly and nice, but of less economic benefit.

Sorry guys I don't get this and I don't, personally, presume to understand the finer points of the arguments made earlier in the thread. But, I think Ireland has to be a net importer with respect to energy needs, right?? Europe is also a net importer. Energy, overwhelmingly *must* come in the form of oil, and most of it is in Saudi Arabia/Iraq? It seems that trying to debate the energy issue without direct emphasis on this fact, means that the various issues become tangential to the wider debate over "peak oil" etc.

Of course we can debate the various aspects of Ireland selling energy, but what do you guys think of the wider energy issues? Also, will the Lisbon Treaty help stop "global warming/cooling" or climate change?

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Sorry guys I don't get this and I don't, personally, presume to understand the finer points of the arguments made earlier in the thread. But, I think Ireland has to be a net importer with respect to energy needs, right?? Europe is also a net importer. Energy, overwhelmingly *must* come in the form of oil, and most of it is in Saudi Arabia/Iraq? It seems that trying to debate the energy issue without direct emphasis on this fact, means that the various issues become tangential to the wider debate over "peak oil" etc.

Of course we can debate the various aspects of Ireland selling energy, but what do you guys think of the wider energy issues? Also, will the Lisbon Treaty help stop "global warming/cooling" or climate change?

global warming is not the job of Lisbon's to tackle last i checked?


but the common energy policy could lead to more renewable energy use and building more interconnectors, which is all well and good but wont be cheap in short term


i dont know whether it was this thread or earlier on but someone brought up an argument in favour of Lisbon by pointing out the pressure being applied to decommission the the Chernobyl type reactors in easter Europe

thats another selling point related to Lisbon and EU

im quite pro nuclear and renewable power, but i dont like the idea of these old soviet reactors being in use as they have very questionable standards compared to modern western reactors

PopeBuckfastXVI

Actually,

This is inserted by Lisbon:

‘— promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide
environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.’;

So it makes fighting climate change a goal of the EU.