'No' vote would add €210m to cost of national debt

Colpriz

210 million?..ask me netherland

how much is it costing us to vote AGAIN, when we already voted????
add to that a failed computerised voting system??? Sure we have buckets of money to throw away!!

Sam Vimes

O'Morris wrote: »

They gain powerful friends in Europe.

So you think trade unions, farmers groups, employers groups, the chambers of commerce of several cities (afaik) and 91% of economists who gave answers in an anonymous poll are all lying to the Irish people and cajoling us to vote yes so that they can gain powerful friends in Europe. I don't really know what to say to that. It seems everyone is lying except the people who have been proven over and over and over again to be lying. I honestly find it fascinating what people can bring themselves to believe when they desperately want something to be true

Kenners wrote: »

This is blatant scare mongering.Simply put and devoid of all the bullcrap, Voting 'Yes' allows the EU to bypass our constitution. That same constitution that gave us our referendum in the first place. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified we will no longer have a say in the direction of Europe and our own country. It will be 'representative democracy' from then on which is code for the political and corporate classes ruling the peons.

I find it ironic that you used the phrase 'devoid of bullcrap' and then proceeded to give a big pile of bullcrap. It's not your fault, you've been subjected to a determined campaign of lies and you had no way of knowing they were lying, they can appear very convincing. I can assure you, as others have, that that is not true

Scofflaw

Colpriz wrote: »

210 million?..ask me netherland

how much is it costing us to vote AGAIN, when we already voted????
add to that a failed computerised voting system??? Sure we have buckets of money to throw away!!

Is that an argument against holding a general election - we can't afford it? Or would everyone be OK with that particular piece of expenditure?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nullzero

This idea is pure conjecture.
Just because somebody has a platfrom to say something may happen doesn't mean it is going to happen. More fearing mongering I'm afraid, no evidence of anything else.

View

nullzero wrote: »

This idea is pure conjecture.
Just because somebody has a platfrom to say something may happen doesn't mean it is going to happen. More fearing mongering I'm afraid, no evidence of anything else.

Just because something is conjecture doesn't mean it is fear mongering.

For instance, it is conjecture to speculate what will happen if no efforts are made to right the state's finances, however it can be scarcely be described as fear mongering to say the consequences of such a policy would be far worse than making an effort to turn the state's finances around, particularly given that we have direct experience of such inaction in the late 70s/early 80s.

Martin 2

alrightcuz wrote: »

how about you read these

http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/90719-iceland-lisbon-feargasms-propoganda.html
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/87893-no-more-issues-should-decided-one-country-french-foreign-minister.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNjExNDYyWj.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Website #1
The post you reference leaves out a lot; Iceland went through a financial meltdown where amongst other things interest rates went as high as 18% (still ~12%) and the value of the Icelandic Krona dropped by over 60% relative to the euro. From an Irish perspective, imagine your mortgage interest rate went up from 3.2% currently to 18%. The drop in value of their currency also made the purchase of imports (virtually everything for Iceland) very expensive. Iceland was eventually bailed out ($4.6 billion) by the IMF and four Nordic countries. This hasn't happened to us because we're in the Eurozone and because of ECB liquidity support.
The Icelandic comparison has more to do with the membership of the EU than the Lisbon treaty, are you suggesting we leave the EU to be more like Iceland? We were on our own before and it was a spectacular failure.


Website #3
This article was heavily discussed in this thread, link; strongly suggest you read it as you may get a different perspective.
With the regard to the Irish economy, you can take the word of an unnamed author on the Rupert Murdoch controlled WSJ European edition or you can take the word of Irish based multinationals, businesses and economists. So which is it?

hobochris

this is just speculation and opinion.

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

this is just speculation and opinion.

If there was someone in the world was able to give anything more than educated speculation and opinion about the future of the economy then he would be a very rich man indeed. But what it's not is baseless scaremongering which is what the dire predictions of certain no campaigners are.

Martin 2

Hydrosylator wrote: »

There is no doubt that there could be an impact, though it is impossible to put an exact figure on it.

The most important part of the whole thing. He's making this **** up.

The reason is simply that they are trying to predict what future interest rates will be and as with all economic forecasting especially where there many variables, it is not an exact science, economists can only make informed estimates.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

He estimated that a 1pc increase in funding costs next year would lead to €210m in extra costs on the national debt.

Yeah I believe him that a 1pc increase would do that. What's the basis for estimating based on such an increase?

Who with any authority has indicated that this could happen?

In actual fact that article is either wrong or misleading, the real extra cost of a 1% increase in interest rates would be between 700-900million depending on what you take the current national debt to be, see link1 or link2. The 200million figure I believe refers to the cost of an extra 1% on the amount being borrowed this year (€25 billion).
A 1% hike in bond premiums is not unreasonable after a seismic event such as a final No vote, after all we have already seen a drop of over 1% since march due to the international perception that Ireland is dealing with its economic problems. Here's an interesting article on government debt from Alan McQuaid, chief economist at Bloxham Stockbrokers: link

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Scaremongering.

That word trips off the tongue of no campaigners far too easily, and in fact you may be doing people a disservice if you are masking genuine economic risks.

hobochris

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there was someone in the world was able to give anything more than educated speculation and opinion about the future of the economy then he would be a very rich man indeed. But what it's not is baseless scaremongering which is what the dire predictions of certain no campaigners are.

Add generalized slander to my above list as well.

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

I will question scaremongering like this regardless of which side it comes from.

ei.sdraob

hobochris wrote: »

Add generalized slander to my above list as well.

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

I will question scaremongering like this regardless of which side it comes from.

the force is strong with this one and he has more than 5 posts

@hobochris

you want to join the debate here, staff are having a hard time finding volunteers for the NO side of the debate

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055689554

PopeBuckfastXVI

hobochris wrote: »

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

It makes you incorrect in mine.

Here's a fact:
QMV is currently the voting procedure of the European Council, and has been all along.

http://www.ena.lu/?doc=21822&lang=02

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

Add generalized slander to my above list as well.

I used the words 'certain no campaigners' specifically to avoid the diversionary 'generalisation' accusation but you went ahead and used it anyway. congrats

hobochris wrote: »

Come back with facts rather then these tripe And I'd gladly consider it.

Sorry facts on what? Do you want me to prove the future? Should I give you next week's lotto numbers while I'm at it?

hobochris wrote: »

I will be voting no Based on the FACT that Lisbon will bring in QMV which I'm against. I suppose in your book that automatically makes me a sinn fein supporter aswell? :rolleyes:

QMV already exists in a large number of areas. You know that right? And why are you so against QMV? Do you think it's good that the UN embargo on Cuba can't be lifted even though pretty much every country in the world wants it, because the US has a veto? Or that sanctions can't be put on Israel, again because the US vetos it? Or that sanctions can't be put on Sudan because China vetoes it because of their business interests there?

hobochris wrote: »

I will question scaremongering like this regardless of which side it comes from.

My definition of scaremongering is predicting something that's not going to happen. An opinion that says something scary might happen is not scaremongering if there is a real possibility that the prediction will happen. If I tell you that if you walk around with your eyes closed you might get hit by a car is that scaremongering, or is that good advice?


Also, could you give me some examples of scaremongering from the no side? Shouldn't be too hard.