Attitude of the yes campaign

rumour

Stark wrote: »

Perhaps while we're at it, Dáil Éireann can hold a referendum on every single law it passes, like a "real democracy".

Thats constructive

Stark

No. My point being that the absence of a referendum does not mean an absence of democracy. People rely on elected representatives to make decisions for them in a democracy all the time. That's how other European countries are working it in the case of the Lisbon treaty. Just because our constitution states we have to have referendums on EU treaties doesn't mean that everyone else has to do the same.

rumour

[quote=Scofflaw;61954135



The ECB short-term loans that are currently bankrolling us aren't a fiscal stimulus, though. The summit you're referring to - is that the pre-G20 meeting on September 17th (which will discuss curbing banker's bonuses and financing the fight against climate change), or a different one?

[/quote]

Thank you for the explanation on voting weights,I guess that would be very popular in Germany but not to worry they're not allowed vote. Regarding the summit of Friday I think, yes it was pre G20 meeting, Merkel and Sarkozy have been very busy in the last week. Curiously at a press conference last week(Monday I think) and it may be electioneering on her part she is reported to have said that Lisbon is a great thing as the German parliament still had the weight to veto and decisions. Sarkozy remained quiet on that issue. This cannot be found in the Irish media, you'll have to check the French and German press.
Returning to the mini-summit, mainstream media attention in Ireland and the UK focused on Bankers bonuses etc,(France and Germany are looking increasingly isolated here, again you can judge where the core resistance is coming from) but you may have heard since that the core discussion is about rolling back financial stimuli and getting agreement. Britian is opposing this as they are not out of recession. I wonder where Ireland sits in this conversation, I guess you can reason for yourself where we figure in all of this, right at the very heart:o

rumour

Stark wrote: »

No. My point being that the absence of a referendum does not mean an absence of democracy. People rely on elected representatives to make decisions for them in a democracy all the time. That's how other European countries are working it in the case of the Lisbon treaty. Just because our constitution states we have to have referendums on EU treaties doesn't mean that everyone else has to do the same.

It is also possible that people might stop relying on elected representatives, in Ireland for example there is a very persuasive argument gaining momentum not to rely on your elected representatives as it hasturned out they '****' things up and line their own pockets. So just because other european countries do it why should we?

I guess thats why our 'elected representatives' are paid more than any other european elected representative. For example what happens if Ireland says 'no'again, What then? another opinion poll identifying the reasons and off to Brussels to apologise return and announce another referendum?

That is why the government should respect the result of the first referendum. Their management of failure the last time was asappaling as their management of the economy. They are making a mockery of the state and bringing democracy itself into disrepute.

Stark

rumour wrote: »

It is also possible that people might stop relying on elected representatives, in Ireland for example there is a very persuasive argument gaining momentum not to rely on your elected representatives as it hasturned out they '****' things up and line their own pockets. So just because other european countries do it why should we?

Well our constitution says we can't when it comes to EU treaties. Now I'm not saying there isn't a democratic deficit in Ireland at the moment but I believe what we need now is a general election to sort this out, not a system of micromanagement where the public has to go the polls on every single banal piece of legislation.

rumour wrote: »

I guess thats why our 'elected representatives' are paid more than any other european elected representative. For example what happens if Ireland says 'no'again, What then? another opinion poll identifying the reasons and off to Brussels to apologise return and announce another referendum?

At some point the treaty will have to be renegotiated and a new one drawn up. How that happens depends on what the Irish people say they want from a new treaty. I think enough was done to address the wishes voiced in the last poll but I doubt even the most fervent supporter of the treaty would accept a third referendum on a similar document.

rumour wrote: »

That is why the government should respect the result of the first referendum. Their management of failure the last time was asappaling as their management of the economy. They are making a mockery of the state and bringing democracy itself into disrepute.

I don't think so on this issue. The widespread misinformation campaign perpetuated by Libertas during the course of the last election subverted the course of democracy in my opinion by totally misleading the electorate as to what they were voting for. People have said they didn't know what they were voting for and the second referendum gives them a chance to learn more about the treaty and make an informed decision second time round.

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

Deadly serious in fact. Unless you can point me towards the EU directive on Irish Public Sector pay rates that I am unaware of.

:eek:If you can't make a connection between our budget deficets and borrowing I'm not going to cure that for you. Also I don't know how much you know about international finance but there would be no public sector pay right now if it were not for the ECB.
We, Ireland, were on the brink of bankruptcy this year, a total collapse of money coming into the country. You may believe we can borrow from wherever but sadly this is not how the world works. When we are borrowing to pay our public sector more than anywhere else in Europe and perhaps the world (exception Zimbabwae) without any means of paying it back how long do you think people will keep giving us money?

The ECB proped Ireland up as failure to do so threatened the viability of the EURO. Once France and Germany are stable which they now are Ireland's problems will not threaten Europe then wewill see a reduction in the money available. Oddly with or without Lisbon the ECB now controls public sector pay policy in Ireland. This of course will not become clear until well after the referendum.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

It is also possible that people might stop relying on elected representatives, in Ireland for example there is a very persuasive argument gaining momentum not to rely on your elected representatives as it hasturned out they '****' things up and line their own pockets. So just because other european countries do it why should we?

I have no problem with people not relying on their elected representatives representatives, but if they then also make no effort to inform themselves on issues, then exactly what sort of democracy are we left with?

I guess thats why our 'elected representatives' are paid more than any other european elected representative. For example what happens if Ireland says 'no'again, What then? another opinion poll identifying the reasons and off to Brussels to apologise return and announce another referendum?

That is why the government should respect the result of the first referendum. Their management of failure the last time was asappaling as their management of the economy. They are making a mockery of the state and bringing democracy itself into disrepute.

If the research shows up as many non treaty related concerns then what would be the point? A third referendum is by far and away the least likely possible outcome of a no vote IMO.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

:eek:If you can't make a connection between our budget deficets and borrowing I'm not going to cure that for you. Also I don't know how much you know about international finance but there would be no public sector pay right now if it were not for the ECB.
We, Ireland, were on the brink of bankruptcy this year, a total collapse of money coming into the country. You may believe we can borrow from wherever but sadly this is not how the world works. When we are borrowing to pay our public sector more than anywhere else in Europe and perhaps the world (exception Zimbabwae) without any means of paying it back how long do you think people will keep giving us money?

The ECB proped Ireland up as failure to do so threatened the viability of the EURO. Once France and Germany are stable which they now are Ireland's problems will not threaten Europe then wewill see a reduction in the money available. Oddly with or without Lisbon the ECB now controls public sector pay policy in Ireland. This of course will not become clear until well after the referendum.

Well Fianna Fail and the PDs alone are responsible the huge expansion in the numbers of Public Servants and the Benchmarking increases paid for on the back of a unsustainable property boom. To try and lay any of the blame on the door of the EU is quite simply crass.

rumour

Stark wrote: »

I don't think so on this issue. The widespread misinformation campaign perpetuated by Libertas during the course of the last election subverted the course of democracy in my opinion by totally misleading the electorate as to what they were voting for. People have said they didn't know what they were voting for and the second referendum gives them a chance to learn more about the treaty and make an informed decision second time round.

Everywhere in the media over the last few days I have heard about the lies of the no campaign and the misinformation etc etc. You appear astute enough to realise that this isakin to just calling them liars. The debate has now decended into calling the other side liars. That it now appars is the strategy of the 'yes' campaign. I think this strategy will back fire and it seriously undermines good work done by people who have gone to great lengths to explain this treaty.

I will give you an example. Today on the wideangle on Newtalk some guy said that anyone who said that abortion would be legalised is just a 'downright liar'. Now as you probably know there is a case in the European Court of Justice being brought by an Irish woman (I think) I forget the detail but as I understand it is a fundamental right to have an abortion that is not available in Ireland. Please appreciate that my position on abortion here is irrelevant. The ECJ has 17 judges and they have never all sat on one case (normally 5-7), but they are for this one. Now I can understand why (The significance of roe v wade) setting Ireland aside this isan enormous case for Europe. However here is my point if we accept Lisbon and this court rules next year that Ireland is in breach of a fundamental right, then do we have to permit abortion in Ireland?

This may not be a direct consequence of Lisbon and the provisions may already be in place re the ECJ, but Ireland has repeatedly been assured that abortion was not an issue. 51% of the population voted 'no' last year where they all liars or duped by liars. This tack of painting them as stupid or disingeneous without fronting issues will domore to polarise people than anything else. Couple that with the association to the political 'saints' advocating this policy and it now appears a recipe for disaster.

The yes camp must change this message quikly if they want to succeed.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

:eek:If you can't make a connection between our budget deficets and borrowing I'm not going to cure that for you. Also I don't know how much you know about international finance but there would be no public sector pay right now if it were not for the ECB.
We, Ireland, were on the brink of bankruptcy this year, a total collapse of money coming into the country. You may believe we can borrow from wherever but sadly this is not how the world works. When we are borrowing to pay our public sector more than anywhere else in Europe and perhaps the world (exception Zimbabwae) without any means of paying it back how long do you think people will keep giving us money?

The ECB proped Ireland up as failure to do so threatened the viability of the EURO. Once France and Germany are stable which they now are Ireland's problems will not threaten Europe then wewill see a reduction in the money available. Oddly with or without Lisbon the ECB now controls public sector pay policy in Ireland. This of course will not become clear until well after the referendum.

It seems, though, that you have confused the ECB lending us the money to pay our enormous civil service bill with the ECB being responsible for the size of the bill.

I will give you an example. Today on the wideangle on Newtalk some guy said that anyone who said that abortion would be legalised is just a 'downright liar'. Now as you probably know there is a case in the European Court of Justice being brought by an Irish woman (I think) I forget the detail but as I understand it is a fundamental right to have an abortion that is not available in Ireland. Please appreciate that my position on abortion here is irrelevant. The ECJ has 17 judges and they have never all sat on one case (normally 5-7), but they are for this one. Now I can understand why (The significance of roe v wade) setting Ireland aside this isan enormous case for Europe. However here is my point if we accept Lisbon and this court rules next year that Ireland is in breach of a fundamental right, then do we have to permit abortion in Ireland?

As so often, this is incorrect in one of the usual ways that bedevils European debate. There is a case regarding abortion taken by two Irish women and one Lithuanian currently before the European Court of Human Rights. Nothing to do with the EU at all.

Regrettably, this distinction is completely lost on many.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

Well Fianna Fail and the PDs alone are responsible the huge expansion in the numbers of Public Servants and the Benchmarking increases paid for on the back of a unsustainable property boom. To try and lay any of the blame on the door of the EU is quite simply crass.

I have no interest in political point scoring they are all equally as bad. This country faced bankruptcy. Our political class to this day flaunt the money they borrow and tax from people like me on a daily basis. I can see no exceptions, as far as i'm concerned not one member of any side of the dail eireann both upper and lower houses has seen fit to comment on their earnings other than to score a few cheap political points. Voting 'yes' will mean they will continue to borrow as long as they can, then they will tax the life out of the country, all this will be done before a penny comes from their pockets.
After that we will still be paying taxes to pay off these debts. Voting 'no' now would stop this mess, and stop the senseless borrowing. Consider this, why would I vote 'yes' to wake up every working day of my life and give half a days work (50% tax) to pay for them. Lisbon will not alter my life greatly but the senseless borrowing of our state will. If I vote 'no' at least the amount we have to pay back is less and maybe then only a third of my day will be for the state.

Please advise?

Stark

rumour wrote:

Voting 'no' now would stop this mess, and stop the senseless borrowing. Consider this, why would I vote 'yes' to wake up every working day of my life and give half a days work (50% tax) to pay for them. Lisbon will not alter my life greatly but the senseless borrowing of our state will. If I vote 'no' at least the amount we have to pay back is less and maybe then only a third of my day will be for the state.

Please advise?

You're living in dreamland if you think a No vote is going to make FF cut the public sector.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

........

Voting 'yes' will mean they will continue to borrow as long as they can, then they will tax the life out of the country, all this will be done before a penny comes from their pockets.
After that we will still be paying taxes to pay off these debts. Voting 'no' now would stop this mess, and stop the senseless borrowing. Consider this, why would I vote 'yes' to wake up every working day of my life and give half a days work (50% tax) to pay for them. Lisbon will not alter my life greatly but the senseless borrowing of our state will. If I vote 'no' at least the amount we have to pay back is less and maybe then only a third of my day will be for the state.

Please advise?

I would love if you could outline the 'logic' you used to come to this conclusion.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

I would love if you could outline the 'logic' you used to come to this conclusion.

If we vote Yes, the EU will continue to bail us out, whereas if we vote No, they'll let us sink?

Can't be. That's scaremongering, right?

amused,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems, though, that you have confused the ECB lending us the money to pay our enormous civil service bill with the ECB being responsible for the size of the bill.



As so often, this is incorrect in one of the usual ways that bedevils European debate. There is a case regarding abortion taken by two Irish women and one Lithuanian currently before the European Court of Human Rights. Nothing to do with the EU at all.

Regrettably, this distinction is completely lost on many.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I tried to explain the link with public spending, deficits and the money we borrow elsewhere. I do not blame the ECB for our problems but to tinkthey did soto help little oldirelandis naive.

Regarding the European Court of Human Rights, (I was wrong to refer to the ECJ :mad:) we signed up to this in 1949 and I assume that we have signed up to all the modifications and restructuring since. I would argue that at no time did our government have the authority to grant or cede any jurisdiction to this court that may permit abortion. Now we will await the outcome of this case. I still ask what happens in Ireland?

There are parallels that give valid cause for concern. I acknowledge your efforts at providing clarity but even you must concede that many of the concerns are the stuff of crystal balls. What todays interpretation is does not protect us against what may come in future,therefore an absolutist approach to this treaty advocating its current day benefits based on a literal translation appeals to a certain audience and does not wn over some others. The example of Chamberalin is an excellent example, despite the wording it is the intent that is of importance.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

I tried to explain the link with public spending, deficits and the money we borrow elsewhere. I do not blame the ECB for our problems but to tinkthey did soto help little oldirelandis naive.

Yes we get all that, it is the No to Lisbon will help bit that puzzles.

Regarding the European Court of Human Rights, (I was wrong to refer to the ECJ :mad:) we signed up to this in 1949 and I assume that we have signed up to all the modifications and restructuring since. I would argue that at no time did our government have the authority to grant or cede any jurisdiction to this court that may permit abortion. Now we will await the outcome of this case. I still ask what happens in Ireland?

There are parallels that give valid cause for concern. I acknowledge your efforts at providing clarity but even you must concede that many of the concerns are the stuff of crystal balls. What todays interpretation is does not protect us against what may come in future,therefore an absolutist approach to this treaty advocating its current day benefits based on a literal translation appeals to a certain audience and does not wn over some others. The example of Chamberalin is an excellent example, despite the wording it is the intent that is of importance.

Isn't that essentially the international relations equivelent of not getting up in the morning in case you get hit by a bus?

rumour

Stark wrote: »

You're living in dreamland if you think a No vote is going to make FF cut the public sector.

Your right about FF, the point being the ECB won't give us the money!!! At least we will have stopped borrowing. I may bealright but the public sector will be screwed which is a complete reversal of the status quo.

K-9

rumour wrote: »

I have no interest in political point scoring they are all equally as bad. This country faced bankruptcy. Our political class to this day flaunt the money they borrow and tax from people like me on a daily basis. I can see no exceptions, as far as i'm concerned not one member of any side of the dail eireann both upper and lower houses has seen fit to comment on their earnings other than to score a few cheap political points. Voting 'yes' will mean they will continue to borrow as long as they can, then they will tax the life out of the country, all this will be done before a penny comes from their pockets.
After that we will still be paying taxes to pay off these debts. Voting 'no' now would stop this mess, and stop the senseless borrowing. Consider this, why would I vote 'yes' to wake up every working day of my life and give half a days work (50% tax) to pay for them. Lisbon will not alter my life greatly but the senseless borrowing of our state will. If I vote 'no' at least the amount we have to pay back is less and maybe then only a third of my day will be for the state.

Please advise?

OK, So voting Yes will cause this.

How is voting No going to change it?

What happens if we stop borrowing tomorrow?

I'm genuinely interested.

Stark

The ECB is not going to cut us off if we vote No. We stand to lose goodwill in Europe, sure, but the EU is not going to "punish" us.

Even if it did, the government would find other sources of borrowing, just at higher interest rates, crippling future generations with even higher debt repayments.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I tried to explain the link with public spending, deficits and the money we borrow elsewhere. I do not blame the ECB for our problems but to tinkthey did soto help little oldirelandis naive.

In fact, I recall them calling us on our structural issues and giveaway budgets all the way back in 2001. I seem further to recall that we gleefully gave them the finger, re-elected Fianna Fail for another glorious 5 years of giveaway budgets and 'light touch regulation' - plus sending them as Commissioner the man who had been criticised.

rumour wrote: »

Regarding the European Court of Human Rights, (I was wrong to refer to the ECJ :mad:) we signed up to this in 1949 and I assume that we have signed up to all the modifications and restructuring since. I would argue that at no time did our government have the authority to grant or cede any jurisdiction to this court that may permit abortion. Now we will await the outcome of this case. I still ask what happens in Ireland?

The ECHR will not rule that abortion is a human right. The most it would do is to rule that the current restrictions on abortion in Ireland infringe other rights. If it did so rule, then it would set damages against Ireland, to be paid to the women.

rumour wrote: »

There are parallels that give valid cause for concern. I acknowledge your efforts at providing clarity but even you must concede that many of the concerns are the stuff of crystal balls. What todays interpretation is does not protect us against what may come in future,therefore an absolutist approach to this treaty advocating its current day benefits based on a literal translation appeals to a certain audience and does not wn over some others. The example of Chamberalin is an excellent example, despite the wording it is the intent that is of importance.

I accept the point (obviously) that what is in the treaties will work out over time, and may have unexpected results, However, that is an argument against all change of any kind - "we don't know exactly what will happen, so we'll do nothing" - and, worse, applies whether you make changes or not. No human political system stays still, because the world continues to throw up new events - we don't know how either Nice or Lisbon would work out in the future, because we can't predict the future.

There'a also rather a large difference (a) between the record of the EU and the record of Hitler's Germany, and (b) between the possible interpretations of Lisbon and those that have been offered by various No campaigns. It's insufficient to say "x is open to interpretation, therefore it could mean [insert something completely insane here]".

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes we get all that, it is the No to Lisbon will help bit that puzzles.

If you vote 'yes' you will reward the political class ( I dislike that term but am stuck for words to describe our political dynasties). That will keep them in power for another few months all the time they will borrow and try to be as good as they can to everyone. Meanwhile the opposition will be promising that they have the solutions none of which involve a pay reduction or a cut back anywhere!!

Voting 'no' actually will make it difficult (perhaps doubly) for all of them to avoid responsibility and do something constructive.

To your average Joe Bloggsright now he is faced with less money negative equity and future higher taxes. This is the outcome either way. So vote no and at least you may reduce your future tax bill.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

If you vote 'yes' you will reward the political class ( I dislike that term but am stuck for words to describe our political dynasties). That will keep them in power for another few months all the time they will borrow and try to be as good as they can to everyone. Meanwhile the opposition will be promising that they have the solutions none of which involve a pay reduction or a cut back anywhere!!

Voting 'no' actually will make it difficult (perhaps doubly) for all of them to avoid responsibility and do something constructive.

To your average Joe Bloggsright now he is faced with less money negative equity and future higher taxes. This is the outcome either way. So vote no and at least you may reduce your future tax bill.

Are you essentially saying "vote No so that the soft stuff hits the fan as soon as possible"? I can't really come to any other reading of what you're saying.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

There'a also rather a large difference (a) between the record of the EU and the record of Hitler's Germany, and (b) between the possible interpretations of Lisbon and those that have been offered by various No campaigns. It's insufficient to say "x is open to interpretation, therefore it could mean [insert something completely insane here]".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I've explained my reasons for investigating 'intent' before. I do see it as extremely complex, something that will shape Europe much more than the wording of Lisbon. That is what will sway my opinion ultimately. My daily life is spent in an environment where wording is argued and tossed around that I am amazed we ever achieve anything. I am also amazed if not somewhat intrigued by how inventive and creative people can be in interpretating the words outside their original intent. However thank you again for your contribution.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you essentially saying "vote No so that the soft stuff hits the fan as soon as possible"? I can't really come to any other reading of what you're saying.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

More or less, the only benefit from Lisbon that I can see is that it saves our politicians necks for a short while, but thats all they need until the next opportunity to spin.
The proverbial soft stuff is coming our way anyway, nothing our politicians are doing can persuade me otherwise, so if you have a family and so forth have a think about their future, Lisbon won't change it but the domestic actions of our government will.
If you are immune to financial concerns then I guess we can continue to indulge in a higher level debate. If I went to Paddy Power do you think he would factor in these aspects on the outcome?

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

I


I accept the point (obviously) that what is in the treaties will work out over time, and may have unexpected results, However, that is an argument against all change of any kind - "we don't know exactly what will happen, so we'll do nothing" - and, worse, applies whether you make changes or not. No human political system stays still, because the world continues to throw up new events - we don't know how either Nice or Lisbon would work out in the future, because we can't predict the future.

Exactly.

The reverse, ironically, is an argument for never having Referenda on any issue, ever.

Abortion springs to mind and Divorce.

If 5,000 in the whole of Ireland had changed their mind, we'd have no Divorce!

K-9

rumour wrote: »

If I went to Paddy Power do you think he would factor in these aspects on the outcome?

No they wouldn't! LOL

I have to say, that is a brilliant point, but morse so on Referenda in general, not Lisbon! :cool:

rumour

K-9 wrote: »

OK, So voting Yes will cause this.

How is voting No going to change it?

What happens if we stop borrowing tomorrow?

I'm genuinely interested.

We are already in the s***, really really badly. Lisbon makes no differrnce to our economic outlook for the next ten years by that time there'll be another treaty that we'll happily jump on board.

Voting yes prolongs dealing with our problems if past performance of all of our politicians is anything to go by, voting no will certainly focus the minds of leinster house. They want us to vote yes to this treaty and they haven't even bothered to get out on the streets and try and get votes, any of them.

We are so f***** we can't stop borrowing, if we did we'd be the equivalent of a third world country over night.

We're not there, but if not managed correctly we could decend into that category. We have to reduce borrowing within sensible margins. As a rule of thumb people don't borrow to put food on the table, they borrow for capital things, a house or a car. The vast vast majority of our borrowing is to put food on the table, this is bad as it means we don't know when we can pay it back, worse stillthe guy lending knows this as well. We've two big problems, the more we borrow in these circumstances the more interest we pay, the more interest we have to pay the higher taxes will be. The higher the taxes the more likely we are to deflate the economy, the more we deflate the economy the more we increase the risk that no one will lend to us. This cycle is all bad news and we are in it. Medicine will come in a few different forms, but it would help if our politicians had some sense of urgency, instead they all think its business as usual with protracted debates and reports on very simple things.
The IMF went into Lativia/lithunia(?) some months ago, initially the public sector had took a 20% pay cut, guess what they were told not enough now they're at 40%. Latvia didn't owe as much money as we do nor was its public sector paid as highly as ours. I'm not sure but someone could maybe clarify this did they ratify Lisbon?

And we also have a banking crisis........

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

More or less, the only benefit from Lisbon that I can see is that it saves our politicians necks for a short while, but thats all they need until the next opportunity to spin.

The proverbial soft stuff is coming our way anyway, nothing our politicians are doing can persuade me otherwise, so if you have a family and so forth have a think about their future, Lisbon won't change it but the domestic actions of our government will.
If you are immune to financial concerns then I guess we can continue to indulge in a higher level debate. If I went to Paddy Power do you think he would factor in these aspects on the outcome?

Obviously we differ on the benefits of Lisbon. As far as the treaty is concerned there's a lot of good stuff in there, but nothing that will get us out of our present hole.

Whether we allow our politicians away with the dog's dinner they made of our economy - with the enthusiastic support of much of the populace, it should be said - is entirely up to us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The IMF went into Lativia/lithunia(?) some months ago, initially the public sector had took a 20% pay cut, guess what they were told not enough now they're at 40%. Latvia didn't owe as much money as we do nor was its public sector paid as highly as ours. I'm not sure but someone could maybe clarify this did they ratify Lisbon?

Yes - everyone but us, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. The Germans have to increase parliamentary supervision before Lisbon is constitutionally OK, the other two are waiting to see how we jump - but might well fall into line when Germany finishes ratifying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

rumour wrote: »

We are already in the s***, really really badly. Lisbon makes no differrnce to our economic outlook for the next ten years by that time there'll be another treaty that we'll happily jump on board.

Voting yes prolongs dealing with our problems if past performance of all of our politicians is anything to go by, voting no will certainly focus the minds of leinster house. They want us to vote yes to this treaty and they haven't even bothered to get out on the streets and try and get votes, any of them.

We are so f***** we can't stop borrowing, if we did we'd be the equivalent of a third world country over night.

We're not there, but if not managed correctly we could decend into that category. We have to reduce borrowing within sensible margins. As a rule of thumb people don't borrow to put food on the table, they borrow for capital things, a house or a car. The vast vast majority of our borrowing is to put food on the table, this is bad as it means we don't know when we can pay it back, worse stillthe guy lending knows this as well. We've two big problems, the more we borrow in these circumstances the more interest we pay, the more interest we have to pay the higher taxes will be. The higher the taxes the more likely we are to deflate the economy, the more we deflate the economy the more we increase the risk that no one will lend to us. This cycle is all bad news and we are in it. Medicine will come in a few different forms, but it would help if our politicians had some sense of urgency, instead they all think its business as usual with protracted debates and reports on very simple things.
The IMF went into Lativia/lithunia(?) some months ago, initially the public sector had took a 20% pay cut, guess what they were told not enough now they're at 40%. Latvia didn't owe as much money as we do nor was its public sector paid as highly as ours. I'm not sure but someone could maybe clarify this did they ratify Lisbon?

And we also have a banking crisis........

Okay, get your point, so why exactly vote No to LISBON?