European Commission Barroso removes the main argument of Yes campaigners

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote: »

I have to admit I’ve mentioned isolation before but I was referring to self-imposed isolation rather than some active EU policy to isolate Ireland from the other 26 countries, the latter is contrary to the spirit and the letter of EU policy. I was thinking of Ireland being perceived as being on the margins of the EU after a No vote and the effect that would have on investment and especially the multinational sector. To paraphrase an Irish multinational executive, why are we are cutting ourselves adrift from the rest of the EU when the one of the main reasons for multinationals being here is that we are part of the EU.

Martin, is that why American pharmaceuticals in Ireland increased production by 68.3% in the year after the no vote?

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year up to July 2009 – rising to a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here. This evidence suggests strongly that the no vote has not impacted negatively on investor sentiment of Ireland. Intel and Ryanair have their own reasons for supporting Lisbon, relating to Intel’s appeal against the €1.06 billion fine, and Ryanair’s desire to takeover Aer Lingus which the Commission previously blocked. What is dragging the economy down has nothing do with Lisbon, but may partly be laid at the door of the ECB’s monetary policy, which has imposed Franco-German interest-rates on an economy at the perhipery of Europe, which had an overheating economy until 2008. A property-bubble and crash became inevitable as a consequence. If anything, events underline the dangers of too much centralisation of economic sovereignty in supranational institutions, which tend to be dominated by the Big States

thebman

yeah so there is a two tier Europe great but which do we want to be in?

I don't see the point of not being as closely integrated as possible with the rest of Europe.

It has done more good than bad so far IMO.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Martin, is that why American pharmaceuticals in Ireland increased production by 68.3% in the year after the no vote?

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year up to July 2009 – rising to a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here. This evidence suggests strongly that the no vote has not impacted negatively on investor sentiment of Ireland. Intel and Ryanair have their own reasons for supporting Lisbon, relating to Intel’s appeal against the €1.06 billion fine, and Ryanair’s desire to takeover Aer Lingus which the Commission previously blocked. What is dragging the economy down has nothing do with Lisbon, but may partly be laid at the door of the ECB’s monetary policy, which has imposed Franco-German interest-rates on an economy at the perhipery of Europe, which had an overheating economy until 2008. A property-bubble and crash became inevitable as a consequence. If anything, events underline the dangers of too much centralisation of economic sovereignty in supranational institutions, which tend to be dominated by the Big States

There's a huge market for viagra (Ahem!) and Prozac these days!

An overheating economy certainly was not an inevitably as you well know, though our obsession with property probably made it inevitable.

My name is URL

thebman wrote: »

yeah so there is a two tier Europe great but which do we want to be in?

People don't really have a choice when it's presented to them like that.

It's kind of like asking whether you'd prefer to live in your friends house or in their yard.

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Martin, is that why American pharmaceuticals in Ireland increased production by 68.3% in the year after the no vote?

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year up to July 2009 – rising to a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here. This evidence suggests strongly that the no vote has not impacted negatively on investor sentiment of Ireland. Intel and Ryanair have their own reasons for supporting Lisbon, relating to Intel’s appeal against the €1.06 billion fine, and Ryanair’s desire to takeover Aer Lingus which the Commission previously blocked. What is dragging the economy down has nothing do with Lisbon, but may partly be laid at the door of the ECB’s monetary policy, which has imposed Franco-German interest-rates on an economy at the perhipery of Europe, which had an overheating economy until 2008. A property-bubble and crash became inevitable as a consequence. If anything, events underline the dangers of too much centralisation of economic sovereignty in supranational institutions, which tend to be dominated by the Big States

The effects of the first No were mitigated by the fact that we are having a second referendum and the expectation / hope in the MNC sector is that we’ll pass it the second time.
The main effects of No in terms of creating jobs or impacting investor sentiment will not be felt for at 4 to 5 years as that’s the typical lead time for the creation of an FDI job however the investment can be cancelled at any time in that period
You cannot say if the first No impacted negatively on investment, what would the figure have been if we had voted yes? Have any investments been pulled or put on hold as a result of the No vote?
A final No is likely to have a much more serious effect.
It’s not just Intel that is advocating a Yes; you mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, well Pfizer (major drug company) are supporting a Yes and as far as I know all the multinationals are supporting a Yes, I know of none that supports a No.
The main reason Intel Ireland is supporting a Yes is that it’s in the best interests of the company and its employees (see their press releases). There may be some patronage towards the EU in respect of the fine however that’s just speculation and doesn’t take away from their main reason for supporting a Yes

.

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

People don't really have a choice when it's presented to them like that.

It's kind of like asking whether you'd prefer to live in your friends house or in their yard.

Except many No campaigners would prefer to live in the yard.

Future Taoiseach eg. would prefer if we had no Euro and we where back in the good old days, tied to Sterling.

Dinner

So the impartial commission is in fact impartial. Who'da thought it.

ghost_ie

My name is URL wrote: »

People don't really have a choice when it's presented to them like that.

It's kind of like asking whether you'd prefer to live in your friends house or in their yard.

So we're essentially being bullied into voting yes. I'd rather sleep in the yard than be bullied into voting yes to lisbon

FutureTaoiseach

Dinner wrote: »

So the impartial commission is in fact impartial. Who'da thought it.

I don't shared their unequivocal belief in the absoluteness of the 'legal guarantees' because they are not in an EU Treaty. I was also amazed this morning on Morning Ireland to hear Justice Frank Clarke claim the ECJ's powers won't be greatly increased under this Treaty - which contradicts the report of the National Forum on Europe which said its jurisdiction would be "significantly increased" by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I will post the extracts of the Forum report from last year on this question.

Another dimension to this is that, whereas he correctly states that since membership began in the 1970's, the Irish Constitution has contained wording to the effect that EU law necessitated by EU membership would supersede Irish law and the Constitition, that it is also the case that the scope of EU law itself is increased by this Treaty. If EU law supersedes national law and the Constitution, then does it not follow that each time the scope of EU law is increased, the Irish Constitution becomes incrementally more superseded? I would contend that by enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law under the amended Article 6 TEU, which states that the Charter will have "the same legal value as the Treaties", that the jurisdiction of the ECJ is being massively increased to practically all areas of personal freedom. Jim Corr brought out a youtube video including his position on the Charter that is useful in this regard.

K-9

ghost_ie wrote: »

So we're essentially being bullied into voting yes. I'd rather sleep in the yard than be bullied into voting yes to lisbon

Nope, as FutureTaoiseach pointed out, if you are happy with Europe as it is, fair enough.

That does not mean we can keep voting No on every future Treaty and not expect the rest to move on.

The UK and Denmark are happy with that with regards to the Euro, so should we.

That does not mean they will move on ahead, just, all we are saying with a NO is: this is as far as we go.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, as FutureTaoiseach pointed out, if you are happy with Europe as it is, fair enough.

That does not mean we can keep voting No on every future Treaty and not expect the rest to move on.

The UK and Denmark are happy with that with regards to the Euro, so should we.

That does not mean they will move on ahead, just, all we are saying with a NO is: this is as far as we go.

K9, do you not think that having been rejected in another form in 2 other countries, that Lisbon is a special case that needs to be rejected for being uniquely anti-democratic compared to the others. This has never happened before with an EU treaty. In the past, if a country voted no in a referendum, it would not come into force unless they reversed that decision by referendum. But what's happened here has disturbed me and I think a lot of other people. The spirit of the French/Dutch decisions were not respected and are not being respected. They brought back 95% of it and wouldn't ask their people directly again if they had changed their minds. They just forced it on them.

Now if you think that's okay - as opposed to merely legal - then you are entitled to that point of view. I am personally appalled that the EU has gone down this road. This has never happened before with another EU treaty. Never. That makes Lisbon a special case, where we can reject this without having to necessarily reject other treaties in future. Principle is at stake here, as well as national sovereignty.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

K9, do you not think that having been rejected in another form in 2 other countries, that Lisbon is a special case that needs to be rejected for being uniquely anti-democratic compared to the others. This has never happened before with an EU treaty. In the past, if a country voted no in a referendum, it would not come into force unless they reversed that decision by referendum. But what's happened here has disturbed me and I think a lot of other people. The spirit of the French/Dutch decisions were not respected and are not being respected. They brought back 95% of it and wouldn't ask their people directly again if they had changed their minds. They just forced it on them.

Now if you think that's okay - as opposed to merely legal - then you are entitled to that point of view. I am personally appalled that the EU has gone down this road. This has never happened before with another EU treaty. Never. That makes Lisbon a special case, where we can reject this without having to necessarily reject other treaties in future. Principle is at stake here, as well as national sovereignty.

I would respect other countries National sovereignty and Constitutions.

Even if 100% of No voters reject the Treaty for this very reason and the Treaty is rejected, it is none of our business.

I think you do know that.

We can point out what we find unacceptable, the French and Dutch need to point this out themselves.

Otherwise we are interfering in France and Holland. You, above many, should appreciate this point.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... Jim Corr brought out a youtube video including his position on the Charter that is useful in this regard.

Let's see if I understand you, FT: you are ad idem with Jim Corr? That video is a wonderful summary of the lunatic positions taken by many proponents of the no vote. I particularly liked the text on screen when he spoke of Europe having an unelected president. And I love the idea of Tony Blair, President of Ireland!

The only good thing about Jim Corr is his sisters.

[The mods might not like a NWO discussion in this forum instead of its being in CT, where it belongs.]

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The only good thing about Jim Corr is his sisters.

I agree.
What do the sisters think?

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let's see if I understand you, FT: you are ad idem with Jim Corr? That video is a wonderful summary of the lunatic positions taken by many proponents of the no vote. I particularly liked the text on screen when he spoke of Europe having an unelected president. And I love the idea of Tony Blair, President of Ireland!

The only good thing about Jim Corr is his sisters.

[The mods might not like a NWO discussion in this forum instead of its being in CT, where it belongs.]

I don't agree all his views e.g. 911 an inside job. But I thought the part where he mentioned the footnotes in the Charter e.g. exceptions where the death penalty can happen, were legitimate points.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I don't agree all his views e.g. 911 an inside job. But I thought the part where he mentioned the footnotes in the Charter e.g. exceptions where the death penalty can happen, were legitimate points.

Yes, but what do the sisters think?

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but what do the sisters think?

I have no idea.

thebman

ghost_ie wrote: »

So we're essentially being bullied into voting yes. I'd rather sleep in the yard than be bullied into voting yes to lisbon

Your not being bullied into anything. Its your choice if you want to sleep in the yard or not :rolleyes:

zenno

I see the yes camp are still spluttering out more garbage, does it ever end.

zenno

WOW and brian cowen say's on primetime if we vote yes it will get us out of this recession quicker LOL. whether we vote yes/no it will not get us out of this recession quicker more scaremongering in the face of the irish citizen. f uck him imo. i'm like a god damn leaf i'm starting to sway all over the place with this kind of c rap

O'Morris

zenno wrote:

WOW and brian cowen say's on primetime if we vote yes it will get us out of this recession quicker LOL.

If Brian Cowen honestly believed that a second no vote to Lisbon would be bad for the economy then he would not have agreed so readilly to holding a second referendum. If I was in his position and I genuinely believed that Ireland's position in Europe would be put in doubt with a second no then I would have insisted on a declaration signed by the heads of all the other governments guaranteeing Ireland's position in Europe regardless of the outcome of the referendum. He could have easily adopted a "no guarantee, no referendum" position. That would have sent a strong message to foreign investors that Ireland's future at the "heart of Europe" is assured.

The fact that he hasn't done this, despite the effort he put into getting the guarantees on abortion, taxation and neutrality, strongly suggests that he and his government don't take their own scaremongering very seriously.

zenno

quote: o'morris: and I genuinely believed that Ireland's position in Europe would be put in doubt with a second no.

well i don't believe that at all, it has already been stated that our position in the EU stands as it is whether we vote yes or no, the EU cloud will not eat us for breakfast if we vote no this is just more scaremongering. it's close now and i can see a good battle on either side coming to fruition. i do have to say the yes and no side have been heavy in lies till this day but i can honestly see a majority vote against that will win at this stage it sure looks that way to me. all these polls are rubbish, not close to what i'm hearing.

Elba101

tonycascarino wrote: »

I guess that's that then. The Yes campaigns main argument is gone and it has been proven to be nothing more than good ol' scaremongering.

Well if Sein Fein said it was scarmongering then it must be! After all, that is the basis of their entire political party.

Sam Vimes

The no side don't seem to believe anything else the yes side say so why would they believe someone when they said they wouldn't discriminate?

Also, the problem is with businesses investing in a country that is pretty much only valuable as a jumping off point to the rest of Europe when they're fighting against Europe every step of the way. It creates doubt and uncertainty. One guy on the commission saying there will be no discrimination doesn't mean a whole lot. He doesn't speak for everyone that might ever invest in or make a decision defeating Ireland