Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Wall St Journal - Ireland has no reason to fear the consequences of No vote on Lisbon
Options
Comments
-
-
marco_polo wrote: »And low and behold some guy from Libertas on the 9 O'Clock news going, pleading with us to look at what the Wall street with its 2,000,000 readers said about Lisbon.
Eh no it appeared in an obscure regional edition of the papers with 9X times less paying customers (16,468) than the Irish Independent (152,204). :rolleyes:
Heavens! Imagine if a group like Libertas were to get people to post exactly the same message in as many places on the internet as possible, using exactly the same "authoritative source" spiel.
Too far-fetched, I'm sure. It has to be a most marvellous coincidence.
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
I don't fear them. Do you?
Fear them? Well, no. I'm pretty certain none of the consequences of the vote either way involve anything fearful as such. They're just things we don't want, surely?
I wouldn't describe myself as 'fearful' of, say, accidentally ordering ice-cream when I really wanted jelly, by virtue of, say, ordering dessert in Mongolia. I would regret the missed jelly, though, because the ice cream wouldn't be what I actually wanted.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Fear them? Well, no. I'm pretty certain none of the consequences of the vote either way involve anything fearful as such. They're just things we don't want, surely?
I wouldn't describe myself as 'fearful' of, say, accidentally ordering ice-cream when I really wanted jelly, by virtue of, say, ordering dessert in Mongolia. I would regret the missed jelly, though, because the ice cream wouldn't be what I actually wanted.
cordially,
Scofflaw
That's good. Hope you get your jelly.
So, you agree with the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch and Ganley, we have nothing to fear?0 -
That's good. Hope you get your jelly.
So, you agree with the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch and Ganley, we have nothing to fear?
...have you stopped beating your wife yet?
To save myself another trip round your leading questions, the answer is that I think the WSJ has produced an anti-Lisbon puff-piece, just as they produced a fawning "interview" with Ganley last week. I think they've produced it because it's now a Murdoch rag, whatever its previous reputation, and Murdoch opposes the EU whenever he can, and often gives COIR the moral high ground when he does so.
I think they are lying when they say that there are no negative consequences for Ireland, and I also think the piece was written by someone who wouldn't have to live with any such consequences anyway. I trust their claims that everything will be just hunky-dory if we vote No about as much as I would trust those of a used car salesman, and for exactly the same reason.
If you personally swallow their lies, bully for you. After all, you'll be voting No anyway, so I'm sure you find the article comforting. Which is, after all, its whole intention.
wearily,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
That the "consequences" bogeyman that is being floated is a load of cr@p.
I have faith in our European partners not to "punish us", or withold ECB funding, or whatever the thinly veiled threat is these days.
I have seen no evidence of a thinly-veiled threat (nor of an overt one).
What we stand to lose is the willingness of our partners to go the extra mile -- sorry, kilometre -- for us, something that they have done in the past. That willingness is the result of goodwill, and by voting no we would sacrifice much of that goodwill.0 -
I don't see the connection between that monopoly case and this. I doubt the EU sees Intel's position on the matter as highly critical or all that relevant. Also AMD is not a Canadian company.Toiletroll wrote: »I think you need to re-evaluate the reasons those companies are supporting Lisbon.
Intel are in a huge multi-billion euro monopoly case with the EU where the EU want to fine them 1.4Bn due to monopoly issues with that canadian company AMD... Great way to get them to support it, with the appeal from Intel coming up shortly after Lisbon.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »I have seen no evidence of a thinly-veiled threat (nor of an overt one).
What we stand to lose is the willingness of our partners to go the extra mile -- sorry, kilometre -- for us, something that they have done in the past. That willingness is the result of goodwill, and by voting no we would sacrifice much of that goodwill.
That's basically it. The idea that "the EU" will "punish us" somehow is a No side straw man. We will lose goodwill, and the other countries with whom we negotiated Lisbon won't be interested in considering Irish interests beyond what they have to. That may not impact dresden8's livelihood, but it will affect a lot of people's, particularly with the WTO, CFP and CAP all up for renegotiation.
One of the reasons the business community are voting Yes is because they know goodwill is important.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It was amusing to see Martin Ferris debating with Simon Coveney on the RTE news, where Ferris finished with some comment about even the WSJ agreeing with a no...
Unfortunately there wasn't time for anyone to ask him when Sinn Fein was last in accord with the opinion of the WSJ on economic matters...
This is one of the big problems with a no. All the No side are so determined to get a No that they don't care who they are sleeping with (metaphorically). That may not matter to them, but it should matter to the general centrist voter who will have to live with the consequences and doesn't want to vote for Libertas or Sinn Fein or Coir in the future.
Ix.0 -
That's basically it. The idea that "the EU" will "punish us" somehow is a No side straw man. We will lose goodwill, and the other countries with whom we negotiated Lisbon won't be interested in considering Irish interests beyond what they have to. That may not impact dresden8's livelihood, but it will affect a lot of people's, particularly with the WTO, CFP and CAP all up for renegotiation.
One of the reasons the business community are voting Yes is because they know goodwill is important.
cordially,
Scofflaw
But they will have to, you see, because if whatever they do doesn't consider Irish interests we'll just vote no again. They don't really have a choice. Once they realize that people will not roll over they will be forced to rethink the whole agenda. What can they do? We've already agreed that they can't push us out of Europe and you say they won't punish us. The only option left is to convince us to accept reform. Which means that the reform they propose has to be in line with what the people want or the people will reject it again.
Democracy.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »But they will have to, you see, because if whatever they do doesn't consider Irish interests we'll just vote no again. They don't really have a choice. Once they realize that people will not roll over they will be forced to rethink the whole agenda. What can they do? We've already agreed that they can't push us out of Europe and you say they won't punish us. The only option left is to convince us to accept reform. Which means that the reform they propose has to be in line with what the people want or the people will reject it again.
Democracy.
At no point is an Irish no vote an automatic given any more than an Irish yes is. It's not usable as a negotiating tool, because it's not reliable. There's no point in expecting the rest of the EU to act like they're being held at gunpoint by an Irish no, because they're not.
Whatever happens at the WTO/CFP/CAP negotiations will automatically be described as a success by our government, who are hardly going to come back and say that they failed - so disregarding Irish interests beyond what's required is a no-lose proposition for the other negotiators.
By the way, I'm not sure what "we'll just vote no again" means here. If we reject Lisbon again in October, that's it. The Treaty has a two-year lifespan, after which it goes back to the European Council (I'm sure we went over this before).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
hatrickpatrick wrote: »But they will have to, you see, because if whatever they do doesn't consider Irish interests we'll just vote no again. They don't really have a choice. Once they realize that people will not roll over they will be forced to rethink the whole agenda. What can they do? We've already agreed that they can't push us out of Europe and you say they won't punish us. The only option left is to convince us to accept reform. Which means that the reform they propose has to be in line with what the people want or the people will reject it again.
Democracy.
Ah yes the old five year old child screaming in a sweet shop approach to international treaty negotiations. Pretty crude at the best of times, all the more so when you don't even know what kind sweets it is you want. All we have know thus far is that we don't want the ones they don't even stock*
* Abortion drops, corporation tax bars and neutrality mints0 -
marco_polo wrote: »
Ah yes the old five year old child screaming in a sweet shop approach to international treaty negotiations. Pretty crude at the best of times, all the more so when you don't even know what kind sweets it is you want. All we have know thus far is that we don't want the ones they don't even stock*
* Abortion drops, corporation tax bars and neutrality mints
My post wasn't intended to appear childish, I am merely pointing out that the EU cannot "punish" us for refusing to ratify Lisbon. They need the electorate of Ireland to pass any treaty at the moment. The only reason I say Ireland specifically is because Ireland is the only country which requires a referendum, and therefore at the moment Ireland is the only country which the EU genuinely must listen to in order to gets its treaties through. I'm not in any way saying this is a good thing - as I've said before I think everyone should have been allowed a vote - but it is nonetheless the actual reality at the moment.
I don't think the EU would be stupid enough to do something like that. It's like "If we piss off the Irish, there go our reforms". So the Irish people at the moment actually have the power to exercise the genuine wish of the Irish people, their honest opinion on the treaty and whether it should pass, rather than a crude "pass it to avoid nasty revenge from the EU if we don't". Of course I believe it should be the same everywhere. A vote cast with a gun to one's head and an instruction on how to vote is not at all democratic.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »My post wasn't intended to appear childish, I am merely pointing out that the EU cannot "punish" us for refusing to ratify Lisbon. They need the electorate of Ireland to pass any treaty at the moment. The only reason I say Ireland specifically is because Ireland is the only country which requires a referendum, and therefore at the moment Ireland is the only country which the EU genuinely must listen to in order to gets its treaties through. I'm not in any way saying this is a good thing - as I've said before I think everyone should have been allowed a vote - but it is nonetheless the actual reality at the moment.
I don't think the EU would be stupid enough to do something like that. It's like "If we piss off the Irish, there go our reforms". So the Irish people at the moment actually have the power to exercise the genuine wish of the Irish people, their honest opinion on the treaty and whether it should pass, rather than a crude "pass it to avoid nasty revenge from the EU if we don't". Of course I believe it should be the same everywhere. A vote cast with a gun to one's head and an instruction on how to vote is not at all democratic.
Am I confused, or are you saying that it's great that we are able to hold a gun to the EU's head, but the idea that anyone should hold a gun to our heads is outrageous?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
As Scofflaw said, the idea that "the EU" will "punish us" somehow is a No side straw man. We will lose goodwill, and the other countries with whom we negotiated Lisbon won't be interested in considering Irish interests beyond what they have to. That may not impact dresden8's livelihood, but it will affect a lot of people's, particularly with the WTO, CFP and CAP all up for renegotiation.hatrickpatrick wrote: »My post wasn't intended to appear childish, I am merely pointing out that the EU cannot "punish" us for refusing to ratify Lisbon.
I sincerely wish they would do that so instead of giving their opinions on completely untrue things such as this:hatrickpatrick wrote: »So the Irish people at the moment actually have the power to exercise the genuine wish of the Irish people, their honest opinion on the treaty and whether it should pass
and this:hatrickpatrick wrote: »The Lisbon Treaty is the constitution with just enough taken out to avoid referenda in most countries which required one for the constitution.hatrickpatrick wrote: »A vote cast with a gun to one's head and an instruction on how to vote is not at all democratic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:That's basically it. The idea that "the EU" will "punish us" somehow is a No side straw man.
It's one straw man that's not hurting the yes campaign though.Scofflaw wrote:We will lose goodwill
How can you be so sure?
And when you say we will lose goodwill, do you mean we the Irish electorate or we the representatives of the Irish people in Europe? The people representing us in Europe are nearly all strongly in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Our government, the main opposition parties and most of our MEPs support the Lisbon treaty and have put a lot of effort into trying to get it ratified. You think they will lose goodwill in Europe if the Irish electorate vote no?Scofflaw wrote:the other countries with whom we negotiated Lisbon won't be interested in considering Irish interests beyond what they have to. That may not impact dresden8's livelihood, but it will affect a lot of people's, particularly with the WTO, CFP and CAP all up for renegotiation.
So should we fear the consequences of a no vote on Lisbon?Scofflaw wrote:One of the reasons the business community are voting Yes is because they know goodwill is important.
It's important to them because a no to Lisbon will make it more difficult for the Irish government to lobby on their behalf in Europe?0 -
And when you say we will lose goodwill, do you mean we the Irish electorate or we the representatives of the Irish people in Europe? The people representing us in Europe are nearly all strongly in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Our government, the main opposition parties and most of our MEPs support the Lisbon treaty and have put a lot of effort into trying to get it ratified. You think they will lose goodwill in Europe if the Irish electorate vote no?
The leaders of our fellow EU states will still like our representatives in Europe, but they won't really repect them anymore because no matter what agreements/treaties/policies are signed there will be no certainty that the Irish government (any Irish government) can sell it at home.
Do you really think that the reasons for a no would be so sharply/clearly defined that they could be easily dealt with in a new treaty? Or would that treaty, no matter what it contained, be subject to the same paranoia and confusion as this one? So if you are the other 26 states how do you treat Ireland? I'd suggest you ask permission from Ireland to exclude it from as much of the EU functioning as possible, on the basis that this appears to be what the people want.
So does it matter who loses the goodwill? It's irrelevant. The EU can only deal with those we elect. If we elect pro-EU and pro-Lisbon parties (as we did), then reject Lisbon, absolutely the electorate loses goodwill for being so fickle... and the Irish representatives lose goodwill for being poor leaders. However the effect is to give the impression that Ireland cannot stand behind any deal we negotiate. So you can hardly expect the EU to be very enthusiastic about giving us more...
For example... If incredibly Joe Higgins' concerns were met, and unions could strike legally over any reason and block any EU immigrant taking any job of an Irish national at a lower wage, and all wages were set legally and could not be minimised, and profits of companies were capped and excess distributed to employees... and this were put to a referendum in Ireland.... do you think it would pass? Don't you think it's possible that even small businesses would say this would put them out of business... and economists would say that Ireland and the EU were going to collapse into uncompetitiveness... and FDI would disappear completely... Don't you think that would fail to pass too?
Ix.0 -
So should we fear the consequences of a no vote on Lisbon?
Yes, if you want to put it like that. I would say that we should be aware that there are possible consequences to a no vote, especially an uninformed or spiteful* one, and that it's not the easy way out of having to educate yourself of the issues
*spiteful as in a protest to actually being asked to understand a treaty that the governments of 26 other countries want before throwing it in the bin or as a protest at FF.0 -
The leaders of our fellow EU states will still like our representatives in Europe, but they won't really repect them anymore because no matter what agreements/treaties/policies are signed there will be no certainty that the Irish government (any Irish government) can sell it at home.
That is really the point. There are so many irrelevant side issues and lies being put forward as reasons to vote no to this treaty and there are so very few people voting because of legitimate objections to aspects of the treaty that there is pretty much no point in the EU ever putting forward another treaty in future as long as Ireland is a member. The government can negotiate until the cows come home but all that will happen is someone with an agenda will stick a lie on a poster and we'll vote it down again. Even if Lisbon does get renegotiated to, say, stop the move to QMV, we'll have idiots shouting "IT'S 90% THE SAME!!!!!!!". The situation of a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries of Europe grinding progress to a halt because of proudly touted misconceptions cannot, should not and will not be allowed to continue forever.0 -
BlitzKrieg wrote: »I still want to know who wrote the piece though.
American newspapers will always have a few unsigned editorial pieces in their Opinion section. These are written by the editorial staff of the paper and the editors are responsible for their content and opinions. Then in the same section they'll have opinion peices with bylines written by people who aren't employees of the paper.
I could have sworn Irish papers did this too; I'm almost positive I've seen this in the Irish Times.
I can't find the equivalent section on WSJ, so here's the Washington Post's explanation of the phenomenon:What's an editorial?
An editorial is an unbylined piece that represents the views of The Washington Post as an institution.
How does an editorial come together?
Editorial positions are determined through debate among members of the editorial board. Going around the table, each board member pitches ideas from his or her focus area and then opens those ideas up for discussion. We're an opinionated group, so discussions can become heated. But we aim to reach consensus. We're also careful to ensure that our positions reflect stands we've taken in previous editorials and principles that have animated Post editorial boards over time.
It's also hardly an anti-EU editorial, either. In fact I'm more inclined to call them out for being wishy-washy about the whole thing.It is up to the people of Ireland to decide for themselves how to vote come Oct. 2. We will not join the chorus of those who claim to know what's best for them.
The article instead focuses on what it calls the "fearmongering" of people like Brian Lenihan. I think this kind of article is crap; it's coverage of coverage, rather than coverage of the issue itself.
My opinion? I'd be willing to bet that this article was written by a desk jockey somewhere outside of Ireland. They don't mention the "fearmongering" and deliberate misrepresentation of the Lisbon treaty by the NO campaign, because what the NO campaign does doesn't get any ink outside of Ireland. Lenihan et al's comments, however, do; it was these to which the editorial is reacting.0 -
ixtlan wrote:The leaders of our fellow EU states will still like our representatives in Europe, but they won't really repect them anymore because no matter what agreements/treaties/policies are signed there will be no certainty that the Irish government (any Irish government) can sell it at home.
But that will be case regardless of how we vote. Do you think if we vote yes that the other governments will be certain that any Irish government will be able to sell EU treaties to the Irish people in the future?
Whatever about the consequences of a no vote for future negotiations, if the other governments react spitefully towards the Irish government in the aftermath of a no vote then that will make the chances of Irish people voting in favour of any future treaty much less likely. The EUers don't want to risk turning the Irish people against the EU. The combination of the Irish constitution and a eurosceptic electorate is something that they really should try to avoid.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
But that will be case regardless of how we vote. Do you think if we vote yes that the other governments will be certain that any Irish government will be able to sell EU treaties to the Irish people in the future?
Whatever about the consequences of a no vote for future negotiations, if the other governments react spitefully towards the Irish government in the aftermath of a no vote then that will make the chances of Irish people voting in favour of any future treaty much less likely. The EUers don't want to risk turning the Irish people against the EU. The combination of the Irish constitution and a eurosceptic electorate is something that they really should try to avoid.
Nothing is certain of course, but a Yes it would certainly suggest that they are cabable of selling an EU treaty to the people. Where a no vote twice would suggest........0 -
Toiletroll wrote: »Ireland was a basket case until we lowered our taxes. Then business came in. The EU didnt do much for the 600,000 who left Ireland during the 80's did it?
This was explained to you in very simple terms, it cant be made any simpler.
Low taxes was one important factor. We could not have afforded to lower our taxes were it not for all the EU money we were getting.
Access to EU markets was another factor, just as important to our low taxes.
And infrastructure was the third most important reason. The infrastructure was paid for by the EU.
So, the idea that joining the EU was irrelevant to the Celtic Tiger is retarded.
Wrong. Explained before, and above.The EU did not contribute to our boom other than the fact that they flooded us with cheap credit once we actually got up on our own two feet[cheap credit] actually promoted massively the sheer madness of the boom and enivitably the massive fall which came from that.
Lenihan is quoted actually saying that one of the things to cause this huge decline in Ireland is the cheap credit from Europe.[/quote]
Cheap credit was not the problem. Cheap credit is a good thing, it stimulates growth. It can lead to inflation, but inflation was not out of control in Ireland.
The problem was two fold. Banking were making poor lending decisions because they had access to cheap credit. The worst example of this was Anglo which had a dreadful business model and it is not surprising they collapsed.
The other problem is that the government made the conscious decision to focus on property related revenues. This allowed them to make populist tax cuts and pet projects. There were critics of this obviously unsustainable policy, and they were labelled begrudges and traitors and accused of talking down the economy. The governments should have tried to take heat out of the property bubble, instead they encouraged it through tax breaks and incentives.
Lennihan is pointing the finger of blame elsewhere, big surprise.
That sentence makes no sense, to what are you referring?So what do the EU know anyway?
Toiletroll you have obviously formed an opinion and are looking for sources to confirm it. An intelligent person would examine as many different sources of info first and then form an opinion.0 -
It's one straw man that's not hurting the yes campaign though.
Then possibly the No side should stop using it? Still, that's their lookout, not mine.How can you be so sure?
And when you say we will lose goodwill, do you mean we the Irish electorate or we the representatives of the Irish people in Europe? The people representing us in Europe are nearly all strongly in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Our government, the main opposition parties and most of our MEPs support the Lisbon treaty and have put a lot of effort into trying to get it ratified. You think they will lose goodwill in Europe if the Irish electorate vote no?
I can be sure because it's already happening. As to who loses goodwill - we all do. Our government will lose goodwill because the other countries negotiated with them in good faith to produce a treaty that the Irish government felt they would be able to get assent to, and they didn't - largely through lack of trying. The Irish more generally, including all Irish lobbies in Europe (such as the IFA), will lose goodwill, because they'll be seen as part of the problem. Like it or not, we do all get tarred with the same brush - which, if you think about it, is entirely democratic.So should we fear the consequences of a no vote on Lisbon?
"Fear" them? What's with the word "fear"? We wouldn't welcome the consequences, certainly, but I doubt any of them are life-threatening or violent, so whether you "fear" them is, I suppose a question of how nervous your particular disposition is.
Unless, of course, you want me to say "yea, you shall fear the consequences!" so that you can put it down as 'scaremongering'?It's important to them because a no to Lisbon will make it more difficult for the Irish government to lobby on their behalf in Europe?
As businesses, yes, and also for them to lobby themselves in Europe, and for the Irish government (and themselves) to lobby on behalf of MNCs here. As individuals and Irish citizens, an awareness of the importance of goodwill means that you'll be equally aware that a loss of goodwill will make it harder for our government to negotiate the best deal for all of us, across the board. It's not just a "profits first" motive, which is what I think you want to have me say.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
marco_polo wrote: »Nothing is certain of course, but a Yes it would certainly suggest that they are cabable of selling an EU treaty to the people. Where a no vote twice would suggest........
I'll respond to the quotes from my own post in a little while (busy at the moment, sorry) but I just wanted to chip in here:
This is a seriously messed up viewpoint in my own view. The views expressed by the Irish people in this referendum should not represent whether our government can "sell us" a treaty or not. It does not signify that our government couldn't sell it, it signifies that we made up our own minds about it and we decided that we didn't like it. Again, that's democratic. The people make the decision. What any party says to "sell" either side of the treaty should be irrelevant - all that should be relevant are the facts about what the text of the treaty will do if it is put into practice, and what will not happen if it's not put into practice.0
Advertisement