Is there anything that has made you think?

WeeBushy

I was hoping to get some responses on this question.

I was asked recently if there were any arguments put forward by the opposing side to my view in the Lisbon referendum debate that gave me real cause to think.

So I'm putting the same question to you all. Are there any arguments or points that the "other" side have made that really made you think as to whether you were in fact right in what you believed, something that you struggled to answer. If so what were they?

This is open to both Yes and No viewpoints to say what it was that was put to you. Lets not make this another debate on the treaty if at all possible

procure11

WeeBushy wrote: »

I was hoping to get some responses on this question.

I was asked recently if there were any arguments put forward by the opposing side to my view in the Lisbon referendum debate that gave me real cause to think.

So I'm putting the same question to you all. Are there any arguments or points that the "other" side have made that really made you think as to whether you were in fact right in what you believed, something that you struggled to answer. If so what were they?

This is open to both Yes and No viewpoints to say what it was that was put to you. Lets not make this another debate on the treaty if at all possible

Sorry,but can you make this post a bit clearer,it looks very ambiguous and very difficult to decipher what conclusions you are trying to get from posters.

BlitzKrieg

he says can you give examples of a good and/or difficult argument from the other side of the debate that you had difficulty with.



I'm trying to think of one but at the moment drawing a blank, if I remember or spot one I'll post back here.

Scofflaw

In a sense, I'd say most of them, really. With the exception of the abortion argument and the real tinfoil-hat NWO stuff like conscription, I don't think there were any arguments that could be dismissed out of hand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Honesty no. I was already a hardline no voter from 2008. From my perspective, once the French and Dutch voted no to the EU Constitution, any attempt to resurrect it was anathema to me on grounds of democratic-legitimacy.

sink

Many things did swing me in the direction of a no vote; that was until I put in further research and found they were bunkum, taxation being the main one. If Lisbon was to give the EU the power to bring in CCCTB against our countries consent I would be voting no.

BluntGuy

There are a lot of seemingly convincing arguments from the "yes" side that I did consider for a while, but when I looked into them, I realised they were neither in Ireland's interest, nor the citizens of Europe's interest.

nesf

Honestly most of the No arguments don't make me pause.

The one I've the most respect for is the "Ireland's sovereignty should remain its own and never be shared". I don't agree with this position but it is a logical and coherent standpoint from with to oppose the EU or the Lisbon Treaty.

nacho libre

A couple of Sink's 10 reasons to vote yes post did force me to accept that are compellings reasons(on moral grounds) to vote yes over and above the main reasons i voted no last time - which has been referred to by the poster(Nesf) in this thread

Moriarty

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Honesty no. I was already a hardline no voter from 2008. From my perspective, once the French and Dutch voted no to the EU Constitution, any attempt to resurrect it was anathema to me on grounds of democratic-legitimacy.

What would your opinion on the treaty be if there were no elections anywhere else in europe before we voted?

From your posts, it seems pretty clear that you're dogmatically anti-EU. If that's true, it would be quite deceitful of you to then claim that your main reason for voting against the lisbon treaty is due to a supposed democratic deficit. It's the intellectual equivalent of the BNP claiming that they're not racist, they just incidentally favour strong immigration controls.

..

On the original question; there were a couple of points the 'No' side raised that I further researched. None held up to any sort of scrutiny however. Lisbon is a pretty boring treaty as major international treaties go, the only remarkable thing is the part played by some on the anti-lisbon side in demonstrating the abject stupidity of the electorate.

worldrepublic

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a sense, I'd say most of them, really. With the exception of the abortion argument and the real tinfoil-hat NWO stuff like conscription, I don't think there were any arguments that could be dismissed out of hand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

what is nwo conscription?

nesf

worldrepublic wrote: »

what is nwo conscription?

NWO stands for "New World Order". Google it, it's standard conspiracy theory stuff. He was drawing the analogy between people claiming Lisbon will bring in conscription and such conspiracy nonsense. Lisbon in no possible way could bring about conscription, such an act would require completely different legislation to be brought in that could not be implemented without a separate Irish referendum, thus making the claims spurious fearmongering at best and cynical lies at worst.

worldrepublic

nesf wrote: »

NWO stands for "New World Order". Google it, it's standard conspiracy theory stuff. He was drawing the analogy between people claiming Lisbon will bring in conscription and such conspiracy nonsense. Lisbon in no possible way could bring about conscription, such an act would require completely different legislation to be brought in that could not be implemented without a separate Irish referendum, thus making the claims spurious fearmongering at best and cynical lies at worst.

As an alternative we can promote the idea of a civilian service. We should also expect to make a real contribution, in line with European standards being laid down, to "peace-keeping". Obama has said that a civilian defense force could be just as well funded as the navy etc. These are the directions Ireland must move in. It's just a matter of when really. If there is another no vote (sigh) we will just have to have another vote next year. Also, given our location in Western Europe and out strategic proximity to Britain, Al qaeda Terrorists might use us as a base of operations. Ireland must play some role in the war on global terror.

worldrepublic

Quote:
Originally Posted by nesf
NWO stands for "New World Order". Google it, it's standard conspiracy theory stuff. He was drawing the analogy between people claiming Lisbon will bring in conscription and such conspiracy nonsense. Lisbon in no possible way could bring about conscription, such an act would require completely different legislation to be brought in that could not be implemented without a separate Irish referendum, thus making the claims spurious fearmongering at best and cynical lies at worst.

I googled per your suggestion, and this is what came up:

What has this stuff got to with conscription, or Europe for that matter, other than something about Paris?

ei.sdraob

What has this stuff got to with conscription, or Europe for that matter, other than something about Paris?

Google Zeitgeist its the Holy Bible of some of the more gullible people (and yes i heard it has been used as an excused to vote no to Lisbon!)

g5fd6ow0hseima

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Honesty no. I was already a hardline no voter from 2008. From my perspective, once the French and Dutch voted no to the EU Constitution, any attempt to resurrect it was anathema to me on grounds of democratic-legitimacy.

Thats the way I feel to be honest. Right now, the upcoming referendum is basically the EU constitution #3.

I havent researched much into either side of the arguement, but I know enough to realise abortion / conscription is a load of bollox. Therefore, I can see myself abstaining from a vote. There's no point in ratifing something I have little knowledge of, or opposing!


On first google search I get this:

”The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the
rejected constitution. Only the format has
been changed to avoid referendums.” - Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by nesf
NWO stands for "New World Order". Google it, it's standard conspiracy theory stuff. He was drawing the analogy between people claiming Lisbon will bring in conscription and such conspiracy nonsense. Lisbon in no possible way could bring about conscription, such an act would require completely different legislation to be brought in that could not be implemented without a separate Irish referendum, thus making the claims spurious fearmongering at best and cynical lies at worst.

I googled per your suggestion, and this is what came up:

What has this stuff got to with conscription, or Europe for that matter, other than something about Paris?

In very brief, it's one of the great conspiracy theories - that the aim of the global elites is to create a totalitarian world government to rule over all us serfs and dupes. At the moment they run what you might call a "shadow world government" by virtue of get-togethers like the elite Bilderberg Club, where they decide how to run the world anyway. Most world events are orchestrated by this shadowy cabal for their own benefit, or possibly that of the Antichrist.

As to how it relates to Lisbon - well, if you believe that the aim is to create a single world government and abolish the nations, then you simply regard the EU (and NAFTA, and the UN) as embryonic parts of that.

Wikipedia page.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Moriarty wrote: »

What would your opinion on the treaty be if there were no elections anywhere else in europe before we voted?

Don't understand that question. Explain.

From your posts, it seems pretty clear that you're dogmatically anti-EU. If that's true, it would be quite deceitful of you to then claim that your main reason for voting against the lisbon treaty is due to a supposed democratic deficit. It's the intellectual equivalent of the BNP claiming that they're not racist, they just incidentally favour strong immigration controls.

On the contrary I am passionately pro-EU. The real anti-Europeans are those who are trying to force Lisbon on nations who voted against 95% of its provisions in the referenda on the EU Constitution. Real pro-Europeans want to protect European traditions of democratic accountability. Your stance smacks of Bush 'with us or against us' soundbites with respect to how anyone who criticised his admin was accused in the US of being "unpatriotic". It has a parallel in how Eurocrats and integrationists accuse opponents of a given EU treaty as "anti-European". Well I am not anti-European. I just want a different, more democratic kind of Europe to that proposed in Lisbon and rejected in France and Holland.

On the original question; there were a couple of points the 'No' side raised that I further researched. None held up to any sort of scrutiny however. Lisbon is a pretty boring treaty as major international treaties go, the only remarkable thing is the part played by some on the anti-lisbon side in demonstrating the abject stupidity of the electorate.

Accusing the electorate of "abject stupidity" is an example of the kind of Euro-elitism that millions of Europeans have come to resent about the EU. It treats voters like children who need some kind of political-nanny to tell them what to do. It also turns on its head the notion of politicians as servants - rather than masters - of the people.

Moriarty

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Don't understand that question. Explain.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. If there were no previous referendums for either the lisbon treaty or the european constitution, what would your opinion of the actual document be?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

On the contrary I am passionately pro-EU. The real anti-Europeans are those who are trying to force Lisbon on nations who voted against 95% of its provisions in the referenda on the EU Constitution. Real pro-Europeans want to protect European traditions of democratic accountability. Your stance smacks of Bush 'with us or against us' soundbites with respect to how anyone who criticised his admin was accused in the US of being "unpatriotic". It has a parallel in how Eurocrats and integrationists accuse opponents of a given EU treaty as "anti-European". Well I am not anti-European. I just want a different, more democratic kind of Europe to that proposed in Lisbon and rejected in France and Holland.

You're deliberately misleading. You're claiming that you're "pro-EU", but then attempting to draw that as a parallel to being "pro-European" (whatever that means exactly). You are explicitly anti-EU and I need go no further than to point to the above paragraph to demonstrate that.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Accusing the electorate of "abject stupidity" is an example of the kind of Euro-elitism that millions of Europeans have come to resent about the EU. It treats voters like children who need some kind of political-nanny to tell them what to do. It also turns on its head the notion of politicians as servants - rather than masters - of the people.

I don't hear many complaining about it being elitist when we don't let people go to public universities if they don't achieve a specific number of points in the leaving cert. Being uninformed and unwilling to inform yourself has somehow become a badge of honour. Being stupid - read: uneducated and unwilling to educate yourself - is unfortunately becoming more acceptable.

There was a significant minority of the irish electorate which were specifically demonstrated to have an infantile understanding of the issues surrounding the lisbon treaty after the last referendum. I'm referring to people who voted when they didnt understand what they were voting on, or due to false claims surrounding conscription, abortion, threats to our corporate tax rates and a number of other ridiculous lies. These are the stupid people. This is fact.

Politicians aren't our servants, they're the people we jointly select to run the country on our behalf. They should be no more a 'servant' to you than the surgeon who operates on you after you've been in a car accident. The ideal is that they should be knowledgeable in the running of the country, listen to their advisors and then form policy in the interest of the country. This includes fighting for that policy in the case that it's unpopular, in the form of demonstrating to and educating the electorate on the reasons why the government think each policy is necessary.

FutureTaoiseach

Moriarty wrote: »

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. If there were no previous referendums for either the lisbon treaty or the european constitution, what would your opinion of the actual document be?

I would still be opposed to it, primarily because I don't want the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be enshrined into EU law. I am pro human-rights, but I don't agree with some of the Charter's provisions, notably Article 15 (everyone has the right to work) and am unwilling to entrust the ECJ not to interpret the Charter's provisions (especially Articles 18 and 19) in a non-expansive way. I am also unhappy that it will be impossible for the Irish people to amend the Charter without the consent of the other member states, yet we will still be expected to be subject to it. Compared to the process of amending the Irish Constitution, this is much too rigid a mechanism we are being asked to accept with respect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Because there is no explicit mechanism mentioned in the Treaty for amending the Charter beyond a treaty-change, that effectively allows other countries to dictate the rights of Irish citizens and those resident in this country insofar as Lisbon's enshrinement of the Charter into EU law "with the same legal value as the Treaties" (Article 6 TEU) makes it pertinant to such rights. I am also strongly opposed to the abolition of the rotating president of the European Council in favour of an appointed official chosen by the European Council, which I feel will reduce equality in the EU by allowing 4 Big States to use the blocking-minority to squeeze the small countries out of influence in this area. Furthermore, I am not convinced the existing arrangements on the Council of Ministers are so faulty as to necessite the expansion of QMV to 60 new areas - notably in Justice and Home Affairs. The Government claim we have an optout in this area, and then proceeds to include in the proposed new Article 29.4.7 language allowing it to scrap the optout Protocol. Taken with Lucinda Creighton's public opposition to this optout (from her blog) and Dermot Ahern's announcement last year of a "review" within 3 years of the optout, it seems clear to me that if we vote yes, we can kiss it goodbye in a few years, whoever is in power.

You're deliberately misleading. You're claiming that you're "pro-EU", but then attempting to draw that as a parallel to being "pro-European" (whatever that means exactly). You are explicitly anti-EU and I need go no further than to point to the above paragraph to demonstrate that.

On the contrary, I oppose Lisbon in part because I want to help save the EU from the democratic-deficit, which is worsened by the centralisation of power in a Eurocracy the Irish people don't elect, despite the veneer of democratisation contained in the provisions on non-binding consultation with national parliaments and citizens.

I don't hear many complaining about it being elitist when we don't let people go to public universities if they don't achieve a specific number of points in the leaving cert. Being uninformed and unwilling to inform yourself has somehow become a badge of honour. Being stupid - read: uneducated and unwilling to educate yourself - is unfortunately becoming more acceptable.

There was a significant minority of the irish electorate which were specifically demonstrated to have an infantile understanding of the issues surrounding the lisbon treaty after the last referendum. I'm referring to people who voted when they didnt understand what they were voting on, or due to false claims surrounding conscription, abortion, threats to our corporate tax rates and a number of other ridiculous lies. These are the stupid people. This is fact.

I have seen no convincing evidence that yes voters were any less ignorant of the provisions of the Treaty than no voters. For me, statements such as yes voters citing matters extraneous to the Treaty such as 'EU membership has benefited Ireland' are just as much badges of ignorance as #lac of information' for a minority of no voters with respect to the research on this question. DJ Carey certainly didn't understand the Treaty when he appeared on Liveline (Radio 1) last year and admitted this. Denis Hickie admitted he hadn't read the Treaty when he appeared on The Right Hook (Newstalk) in June (I believe 22nd). Furthermore, I contend that much of the Treaty is open to interpretation, and that what is and is not pertinanr to it is therefore debatable in some areas. At the end of the day, much of this will come down to the ECJ and how it decides to interpret it.

Politicians aren't our servants, they're the people we jointly select to run the country on our behalf. They should be no more a 'servant' to you than the surgeon who operates on you after you've been in a car accident. The ideal is that they should be knowledgeable in the running of the country, listen to their advisors and then form policy in the interest of the country. This includes fighting for that policy in the case that it's unpopular, in the form of demonstrating to and educating the electorate on the reasons why the government think each policy is necessary.

It's not an either-or. They should both be the servants of the people, and be knowledgeable in the running of the country. The corruption uncovered by the Tribunals was the product of a political-system where the wielders of power regarded themselves as the masters and the people as their servants. More humility from the political-class would not go far astray.

tlev

I agree that with the point that the masses lean towards ignorant and uneducated and for lack of a better phrase 'don't know what is good for them'.

I know I've said this before but recent history points to the fact that Ireland are incapable of effectively governing themselves. I'm not saying let the EU takeover but a helping hand in matters they know more than us about would be welcome no?

Ireland has ruled themselves roughly 80 years

Rest of Europe has more experience in these matters. Let them deal with it?

*Raises Flame proof Umbrella.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

I agree that with the point that the masses lean towards ignorant and uneducated and for lack of a better phrase 'don't know what is good for them'.

I know I've said this before but recent history points to the fact that Ireland are incapable of effectively governing themselves. I'm not saying let the EU takeover but a helping hand in matters they know more than us about would be welcome no?

Ireland has ruled themselves roughly 80 years

Rest of Europe has more experience in these matters. Let them deal with it?

*Raises Flame proof Umbrella.

I agree. Plus, as we've discussed elsewhere, putting in place a civilian force (as described by Obama) will be able to monitor the activities of people who have intellectual/educational deficiencies, who are the most likely to become "conspiracy nuts" and terrorists. Fighting the global War on Terror and the global War on Drugs means bringing education to as many people as possible. One day, everyone will be appropriately educated and safe.

ixtlan

Getting back to the original question.

I have been thinking very deeply about the question of self-determination, and the appeal of controlling your own destiny. At a personal, community, national and international level.

There is a lot of debate in this area, and I do not dismiss the issues raised. It is for many people a bridge too far to ask them to start thinking of themselves as Europeans.

For myself, I ask the question... OK... if we have full national self-determination... how much control does it really grant us over our day-to-day lives?

I work in a multi-national whose success depends on a good business environment in Europe and globally. Tax is important to them, but for that we have full self-determination. So how can I influence having a good business environment globally? Surely only through the EU?

I want to eat healthily. Some of my food is local, but honestly a lot is imported. We could influence Irish producers to adhere to standards, but I want all producers in the EU to do the same otherwise some will drop standards to save money. I can only have that influence through the EU.

I want to have energy at a reasonable price. Most of this is imported. How can we influence Russia to grant security of gas supply? EU?

To more tricky matters... what about human and civil rights?

I want to be treated fairly by the authorities. I want them to do "the right thing". Do they? Does the Irish government have a good record of this? Better than other states in the EU? Better than the EU itself? From my perspective it seems the Irish government is often forced to implement laws that the public thinks are "the right thing". This is puzzling. One would expect that full self-determination would lead to a fair society and shared determination would lead to laws which we didn't want. This is the understandable concern of some no voters. What I have come to believe is that there is an inherent fairness about the decisions of 27 states with differing backgrounds and attitudes, which can make individual states "do the right thing" when if left to their own control they would avoid it because it would cost too much or does not affect enough people to bother with.

I've been thinking about trust. Do I generally trust people? Or not? I do trust. Maybe there is danger in that, but I feel I live a happier live by taking that positive attitude. So do I trust the EU? Yes. So far, historically it has earned that trust.

Ix

tlev

ixtlan wrote: »

Getting back to the original question.

I have been thinking very deeply about the question of self-determination, and the appeal of controlling your own destiny. At a personal, community, national and international level.

There is a lot of debate in this area, and I do not dismiss the issues raised. It is for many people a bridge too far to ask them to start thinking of themselves as Europeans.

For myself, I ask the question... OK... if we have full national self-determination... how much control does it really grant us over our day-to-day lives?

I work in a multi-national whose success depends on a good business environment in Europe and globally. Tax is important to them, but for that we have full self-determination. So how can I influence having a good business environment globally? Surely only through the EU?

I want to eat healthily. Some of my food is local, but honestly a lot is imported. We could influence Irish producers to adhere to standards, but I want all producers in the EU to do the same otherwise some will drop standards to save money. I can only have that influence through the EU.

I want to have energy at a reasonable price. Most of this is imported. How can we influence Russia to grant security of gas supply? EU?

To more tricky matters... what about human and civil rights?

I want to be treated fairly by the authorities. I want them to do "the right thing". Do they? Does the Irish government have a good record of this? Better than other states in the EU? Better than the EU itself? From my perspective it seems the Irish government is often forced to implement laws that the public thinks are "the right thing". This is puzzling. One would expect that full self-determination would lead to a fair society and shared determination would lead to laws which we didn't want. This is the understandable concern of some no voters. What I have come to believe is that there is an inherent fairness about the decisions of 27 states with differing backgrounds and attitudes, which can make individual states "do the right thing" when if left to their own control they would avoid it because it would cost too much or does not affect enough people to bother with.

I've been thinking about trust. Do I generally trust people? Or not? I do trust. Maybe there is danger in that, but I feel I live a happier live by taking that positive attitude. So do I trust the EU? Yes. So far, historically it has earned that trust.

Ix

I think that this is a well thought out post.

BluntGuy

ixtlan wrote: »

I've been thinking about trust. Do I generally trust people? Or not? I do trust. Maybe there is danger in that, but I feel I live a happier live by taking that positive attitude. So do I trust the EU? Yes. So far, historically it has earned that trust.

I wouldn't have this as a reason to support the treaty. There has been a lot of "Europe has been good to us in the past"-talk, but that's irrelevant.

Say "yes", if you feel the direction Europe is going to take with the Lisbon Treat will be good for us in the future.

Say "no", if you feel the opposite.

A lot of your post is very insightful though. This particular point is very good (and I'm a "no" voter saying this by the way):

I want to be treated fairly by the authorities. I want them to do "the right thing". Do they? Does the Irish government have a good record of this? Better than other states in the EU? Better than the EU itself? From my perspective it seems the Irish government is often forced to implement laws that the public thinks are "the right thing". This is puzzling. One would expect that full self-determination would lead to a fair society and shared determination would lead to laws which we didn't want. This is the understandable concern of some no voters. What I have come to believe is that there is an inherent fairness about the decisions of 27 states with differing backgrounds and attitudes, which can make individual states "do the right thing" when if left to their own control they would avoid it because it would cost too much or does not affect enough people to bother with.

ixtlan

BluntGuy wrote: »

I wouldn't have this as a reason to support the treaty. There has been a lot of "Europe has been good to us in the past"-talk, but that's irrelevant.

Say "yes", if you feel the direction Europe is going to take with the Lisbon Treat will be good for us in the future.

Say "no", if you feel the opposite.

A lot of your post is very insightful though. This particular point is very good (and I'm a "no" voter saying this by the way):

Thanks for the comments!

I would never say "Europe has been good to us in the past". That suggests a "them and us" point of view.

I would say "Europe has been good for us in the past, and that is the best indicator of how it will be in the future". Past behaviour is not completely irrelevant. The new treaty is the most important thing, but if some matters come down to a question of trust, past behaviour is important.

The EU has forced us to confront issue of environmental and social concern which we ignored for too long because they were going to cost too much to deal with or they were too complex for us to understand.

In a perfect world we would not need to be forced, and I use that word advisedly knowing that to those on the no side it rings dangerously true. To a certain extent we depend on the EU as our conscience in some matters to make us do "the right thing". It would be better if we would do those things regardless, but many of them are things that we would never ever do alone.

For example, how much pollution do you allow a chemical plant to pump into the environment? If every state set their own levels you can imagine the multi-nationals setting up in the most lax regions to save money. So we agree to be "forced" to one standard.

Likewise, how much on-the-job protection do you offer employees? The more they get the higher the costs. Again our an EU-wide agreement prevents us from falling to the lowest level we can, and we agree to be "forced" to a higher standard.

I do understand the desire for complete self-determination. It is appealing, especially for those with a strong sense of national identity. However in almost every area I think of, I see that the world we live in today is so interconnected that every policy area where we might make national decisions are primarily influenced by international issues.

I have some concerns about the single currency, as without it our housing bubble might have been kept more in check. While it does give us stability, it would work better in a more tightly controlled financial environment, which governments are unlikely to ever agree to.

I can imagine unlikely scenarios where closer EU integration leads to probems. However I can also see the failure of Lisbon leading to even worse problems, and that seems to me to be the more dangerous route. I am inclined to take the position that I will vote on Lisbon, and not on what the EU might become after the next treaty. I'll decide and vote on that treaty then.

Ix.

ei.sdraob

ixtlan wrote: »

Thanks for the comments!

I would never say "Europe has been good to us in the past". That suggests a "them and us" point of view.

I would say "Europe has been good for us in the past, and that is the best indicator of how it will be in the future". Past behaviour is not completely irrelevant. The new treaty is the most important thing, but if some matters come down to a question of trust, past behaviour is important.

The EU has forced us to confront issue of environmental and social concern which we ignored for too long because they were going to cost too much to deal with or they were too complex for us to understand.

In a perfect world we would not need to be forced, and I use that word advisedly knowing that to those on the no side it rings dangerously true. To a certain extent we depend on the EU as our conscience in some matters to make us do "the right thing". It would be better if we would do those things regardless, but many of them are things that we would never ever do alone.

For example, how much pollution do you allow a chemical plant to pump into the environment? If every state set their own levels you can imagine the multi-nationals setting up in the most lax regions to save money. So we agree to be "forced" to one standard.

Likewise, how much on-the-job protection do you offer employees? The more they get the higher the costs. Again our an EU-wide agreement prevents us from falling to the lowest level we can, and we agree to be "forced" to a higher standard.

I do understand the desire for complete self-determination. It is appealing, especially for those with a strong sense of national identity. However in almost every area I think of, I see that the world we live in today is so interconnected that every policy area where we might make national decisions are primarily influenced by international issues.

I have some concerns about the single currency, as without it our housing bubble might have been kept more in check. While it does give us stability, it would work better in a more tightly controlled financial environment, which governments are unlikely to ever agree to.

I can imagine unlikely scenarios where closer EU integration leads to probems. However I can also see the failure of Lisbon leading to even worse problems, and that seems to me to be the more dangerous route. I am inclined to take the position that I will vote on Lisbon, and not on what the EU might become after the next treaty. I'll decide and vote on that treaty then.

Ix.

Yet another good post Ix


but i would like to point something out about common currency issue you brought up

Yes the rates were set too low for Ireland, but is it ECBs fault that we chose to take this cheap money and blow it on a housing orgy instead of investing it wisely in things like renewables which actually add wealth to the economy?

Also I want to point at Iceland, they had their own currency but it didn't stop them borrowing in foreign currencies and going bankrupt, would Ireland have ended up like a worse version of Iceland with no euro to fall back on?

;

ixtlan

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yet another good post Ix


but i would like to point something out about common currency issue you brought up

Yes the rates were set too low for Ireland, but is it ECBs fault that we chose to take this cheap money and blow it on a housing orgy instead of investing it wisely in things like renewables which actually add wealth to the economy?

Also I want to point at Iceland, they had their own currency but it didn't stop them borrowing in foreign currencies and going bankrupt, would Ireland have ended up like a worse version of Iceland with no euro to fall back on?

;

Hello.

Yes, thanks for this. I agree generally. It was our fault. The government took decisions that accererated the bubble.

The low interest rates meant that the government needed to take somewhat more difficult decisions than they would have had to if we had our own currency. For example they should really have been increasing taxes over the past few years to curb inflation. Very unpopular to do that during a boom. Not quite so bad to be able to blame the central bank for increasing rates if they could have done so.

Anyhow right now, at this point in time we are far better off inside the Eurozone.

Ix.

worldrepublic

ixtlan wrote: »

Hello.

Yes, thanks for this. I agree generally. It was our fault. The government took decisions that accererated the bubble.

The low interest rates meant that the government needed to take somewhat more difficult decisions than they would have had to if we had our own currency. For example they should really have been increasing taxes over the past few years to curb inflation. Very unpopular to do that during a boom. Not quite so bad to be able to blame the central bank for increasing rates if they could have done so.

Anyhow right now, at this point in time we are far better off inside the Eurozone.

Ix.

The best thing is to create a World-o-zone. I wonder what would they call such a currency? May I have a cup of tea? Yes, that will cost one Eartho.

Some day....... by that stage of course we will be complaining about the fact that the little grey aliens are manipulating the inter-planetary stock exchange. I can imagine Ann Doyle's third clone telling us that "the Eartho is down 2 points and the Greyo is up 1 point etc. etc.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

The best thing is to create a World-o-zone. I wonder what would they call such a currency? May I have a cup of tea? Yes, that will cost one Eartho.

Some day....... by that stage of course we will be complaining about the fact that the little grey aliens are manipulating the inter-planetary stock exchange. I can imagine Ann Doyle's third clone telling us that "the Eartho is down 2 points and the Greyo is up 1 point etc. etc.

What are you talking about?

ei.sdraob

tlev wrote: »

What are you talking about?

a global currency enforced via embeded microchips in your arm