Why will the Govt not hold an "Irexit" referendum?

ArchXStanton

oceanman wrote: »

as we all remember too well here...

"Vote yes for jobs"

Some shower of scumbags

lawred2

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Revisiting the thing once in a generation has some merit.

Revisiting it after a couple of years just because people have been kow-towed, cajoled or frightened into doubting their original vote is just making a mockery of a sensible notion of democracy.

People having to live long-term with the conseqences of their voting actions is probably a good idea anyway.

Or IS that too much for the snowflake mind ?

You say frightened, I say enlightened.

The Brexit campaign has been utterly discredited since the vote.

The damage that will be done by Brexit is not something that can be easily unwound by a subsequent vote after Brexit has happened. So it's disingenuous in the extreme to just say 'live with it' - it's not like a constitutional referendum on a single issue like abortion.. Brexit has far reaching consequences that will see British citizens worse off. A vote in 25 years would ask what exactly?

I still don't see how voting again is any sort of affront to democracy. Obviously you would hate to see another vote as you fear the likely reversal of the result.

Can't see how providing a mechanism that allows for change of mind could be considered anything but democratic but there you go...

Something something snowflake something something millennial blah blah

Lefty Bicek

lawred2 wrote: »

blah blah

Indeed you are.

lawred2

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Indeed you are.

All the best failing at the polls. Windbag.

Lefty Bicek

lawred2 wrote: »

Can't see how providing a mechanism that allows for change of mind could be considered anything but democratic but there you go...

I can't see anything wrong with people living with the consequences of their actions.

lawred2

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I can't see anything wrong with people living with the consequences of their actions.

Isn't that interesting. Do you have a newsletter that I could sign up to?

Lefty Bicek

lawred2 wrote: »

Isn't that interesting. Do you have a newsletter that I could sign up to?

Interesting, yes. And for you, probably quite novel.

lawred2

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Interesting, yes. And for you, probably quite novel.

Of course. Because I'm a millennial. And a snowflake.

All the best at the polls.

Lefty Bicek

lawred2 wrote: »

Of course. Because I'm a millennial. And a snowflake.

And you have school in the morning.

Hoppit.



And because I believe in free education...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108031262&postcount=151

So, I'm not really interested in polls at all. You made it up.

kuntboy

This thread proves what a bunch of timid little sheep the Irish are. You've seen what's happening in Europe, do you think Ireland will be any different? Yet you continue to buy all the liberal lefty bull**** propaganda. You're finished. Enjoy the last days of your country and people as you know it

Larbre34

kuntboy wrote: »

This thread proves what a bunch of timid little sheep the Irish are. You've seen what's happening in Europe, do you think Ireland will be any different? Yet you continue to buy all the liberal lefty bull**** propaganda. You're finished. Enjoy the last days of your country and people as you know it

Ok, thanks for the warning bud. I'll get right on that as soon as I'm done enjoying yo momma.

Its a pity this thread is in AH, it could otherwise be a decent debate.

Cabaal

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Revisiting the thing once in a generation has some merit.

Revisiting it after a couple of years just because people have been kow-towed, cajoled or frightened into doubting their original vote is just making a mockery of a sensible notion of democracy.

People having to live long-term with the conseqences of their voting actions is probably a good idea anyway.

Or IS that too much for the snowflake mind ?

Actually they were lied to,
Time and time again the leave side outright lied to the UK public, that has been proven.

So a conpaign built on proven lies is ok in your view?

Also, you keep making claims of EU bullying, time and time again you've been asked to backup those claims?

So are you going to backup your claim or finally admit your lies?

Also:

Revisiting the thing once in a generation has some merit.

some merit?
You know Ireland had two referendums on the same issue within 9 years of each other? Also, I'm not referring to the Nice Treaty before your month starts foaming and you start going on about the EU again.

Its perfectly fine to have a second ref on the same matter if there's public demand for it and you certainly don't have to wait until the next generation. In relation to Brexit over time there is showing that there is more and more demand for the public to have a say on the final clusterf**k the government come up with.

Considering its such a massive decision with extremely long term impacts on every person in the country its only right they know whats going to happen if they accept the deal thats proposed, because during the last ref they were sold lies.

dan1895

kuntboy wrote: »

This thread proves what a bunch of timid little sheep the Irish are. You've seen what's happening in Europe, do you think Ireland will be any different? Yet you continue to buy all the liberal lefty bull**** propaganda. You're finished. Enjoy the last days of your country and people as you know it

This thread proves what a bunch of timid little sheep the Right are. You've seen what's happening in Britain, do you think Ireland will be any different? Yet you continue to buy all the pro-brexit bull**** propaganda. You're finished. Enjoy the last days of your country and people as you know it

Cabaal

kuntboy wrote: »

This thread proves what a bunch of timid little sheep the Irish are. You've seen what's happening in Europe, do you think Ireland will be any different? Yet you continue to buy all the liberal lefty bull**** propaganda. You're finished. Enjoy the last days of your country and people as you know it

You sound like any other conservative snowflake who is throwing their toys out of the pram because they don't like whats happening.

Examples of similar types of hyperbole:
- Divorce will destroy the fabric of Irish society
- If "gay marriage" is made legal they'll be marrying animals next

Here you are claiming that somehow the EU will destroy Ireland and its people, in all honesty its hysterical nonsense. You are nothing more then yet another person in history who feels insecure and projects onto others your insecurity's and fears.

CruelCoin

Cabaal wrote: »

Here you are claiming that somehow the EU will destroy Ireland and its people, in all honesty its hysterical nonsense. You are nothing more then yet another person in history who feels insecure and projects onto others your insecurity's and fears.

It'll never destroy the people, but it's almost a certainty that it will eventually destroy the nation (or at least the nationhood aspect of it).

Ever closer union won't stop for little old Ireland.

First Up

There won't be such a referendum in Ireland because there is zero prospect of the Dail sanctioning such a thing. The parties (and with a few loony fringe exceptions the independents) in the Dail are overwhelmingly in favour of EU membership, as are the people who elected them.

Ireland has grown enormously in both stature and prosperity because of EU membership. Unlike some of our neighbours in the UK, we have no hang ups being part of an international cooperative in which some decisions are pooled. We also have a enough confidence in our nation and culture not to feel threatened by ever closer union with the peoples of Europe - or anywhere else.

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/irexit1/status/1038434895893352449?s=21

Not a very original party...and Ireland is a lot better now than in the past when mass emigration was the norm, one of the poorest countries in the EU/EEC, unemployment persistently high etc.
There is a lot wrong with the country but ‘great again’ is like ???? When was it exactly great in the past compared to say now, was the poverty fun?

dan1895

That's just a parody account. The real one is a lot more slimey and dangerous.

RobertKK

dan1895 wrote: »

That's just a parody account. The real one is a lot more slimey and dangerous.

Ok it got me lol
But that is where it comes from. Trump supports Brexit because it is anti-EU and he is friends with the idiot Nigel Farage.
So while it may be a parody account, it isn’t a million miles away from the reality.

TheMilkyPirate

Surely it would be Eirexit?

seamus

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Revisiting the thing once in a generation has some merit.

Yes, this is why sensible democracies only hold elections once every generation. Oh, wait.

2-3 years is more than enough time IMO to pass before holding a second vote on issues of large social significance or economic impact.

It shouldn't be the norm for all issues, but especially where the outcome wasn't an overwhelming majority or the issues have become clearer over time, there's nothing undemocratic about asking a second time. In fact, that's even more democratic than revisiting it once in a generation.

The notion that a question should be asked once and then left alone for years regardless of the consequences of that vote, is always espoused when it suits an agenda.

dan1895

RobertKK wrote: »

Ok it got me lol
But that is where it comes from. Trump supports Brexit because it is anti-EU and he is friends with the idiot Nigel Farage.
So while it may be a parody account, it isn’t a million miles away from the reality.

Each account is as stupid as the other. Just one account knows it is being stupid though.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

The notion that a question should be asked once and then left alone for years regardless of the consequences of that vote, is always espoused when it suits an agenda.

Otherwise it'd be pointless having elections every few years. We decided that, lets leave it for a generation.

We shouldn't do it for every decision we ever made but we should when there's been a change of mind or it will impact people.
Brexit is a great example. people voted for brexit without knowing what the final deal would be. Once they know, they should get another vote.

First Up

Grayson wrote:

We shouldn't do it for every decision we ever made but we should when there's been a change of mind or it will impact people. Brexit is a great example. people voted for brexit without knowing what the final deal would be. Once they know, they should get another vote.

They can vote away but the EU deals with the UK government and they invoked A50. Unless and until the UK government asks if it can withdraw it and all 27 EU countries agree to allow them do so, they leave next April.

Neither of those conditions is likely to be met.

4068ac1elhodqr

First Up wrote: »

There won't be such a referendum in Ireland because there is zero prospect of the Dail sanctioning such a thing.

If/when there was ever a ref' on this it, wouldn't be anytime soon, certainly not within 5-7yrs. And it wouldn't be under current comparable conditions.

The likely hood is that it would occur only after:

i) Scotland becomes independent.
i) The post-brexit GB economy settles, Labour regains control.
ii) There is a 'Unity' ref decision regarding the whole island (indie Ire).
iii) Other states would have left the EU, perhaps Italy and a few others.

So, thus 'Breunion' wouldn't be the primary option, an alternative EU7 economic would be more likely, featuring indie Scotland, united Ire, maybe a few others, from the existing EU.

Not to mention the possibility of new nations e.g. Catalonia seeking fresh partnerships

Not to mention the expansion of the current EU to include +6 of the W.Balklans, all very poor economies (40% approx GDP of Germany GDP-PP) which may not be popular with the more wealthy nations.

Oh and Turkey may flood the EU with a couple of million more refugees/migrants if they feel they're no receiving any gains from their relationship with the EU. Even now Ankara are requesting visa-free travel and deeper trade ties.

Berserker

First Up wrote: »

Ireland has grown enormously in both stature and prosperity because of EU membership. Unlike some of our neighbours in the UK, we have no hang ups being part of an international cooperative in which some decisions are pooled. We also have a enough confidence in our nation and culture not to feel threatened by ever closer union with the peoples of Europe - or anywhere else.

Was freedom to make your own decisions not one of the reasons behind the 1916 rising etc? I recall attending a talk on the matter once and David McWilliams stated that it was one of the main reasons behind that movement.

Also, I'd question your statement about the level of confidence in your nation and culture. A Polish colleague often tells me that the Irish are very open to different cultures, once that culture is the same as theirs.

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irexit1/status/1038434895893352449?s=21

Not a very original party...and Ireland is a lot better now than in the past when mass emigration was the norm, one of the poorest countries in the EU/EEC, unemployment persistently high etc.
There is a lot wrong with the country but ‘great again’ is like ???? When was it exactly great in the past compared to say now, was the poverty fun?

Ireland had mass emigration during the last recession. Membership of the EU did not prevent that, it made that recession worse in truth and unemployment rocketed at that time also. Don't get me wrong, I think EU membership has and is good for Ireland but I think some people are making it out to be a lot better than it is.

VinLieger

kuntboy wrote: »

This thread proves what a bunch of timid little sheep the Irish are. You've seen what's happening in Europe, do you think Ireland will be any different? Yet you continue to buy all the liberal lefty bull**** propaganda. You're finished. Enjoy the last days of your country and people as you know it

Feck of back to T_D and get back to masturbating over the pizzagate/qanon retardedness

Grayson

First Up wrote: »

They can vote away but the EU deals with the UK government and they invoked A50. Unless and until the UK government asks if it can withdraw it and all 27 EU countries agree to allow them do so, they leave next April.

Neither of those conditions is likely to be met.

But the UK government won't ask because they say they're respecting the democratic mandate.

It's the crazy thing about brexit. Most people didn't know what they were voting for. was it hard or soft? Free market access or WTO rules? No-one knew. Once those things are settled (if they're ever settled) then it makes sense to hold another vote. Then give them the options No deal, the negotiated deal, or stay in the EU.

As for ireland leaving. It'd be nice if they were honest about it. Multinationals that operate across europe would have no need to be here. We'd face barriers importing most of our food stuff. Prices would go up, the punt would be worthless.

Cabaal

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a lot wrong with the country but ‘great again’ is like ???? When was it exactly great in the past compared to say now, was the poverty fun?

Oh we had great times in previous decades don't you know,

My parents got a mortgage to expand our business back in the 80's and they could get it but with a 18% APR...my mother always remembers it because it was the same percentage of unemployed in Ireland at the time.

Things moved of of course from the EEC and we're now banks linked to the ECB and we won't see interest rates anywhere near 20%. if people want the good old times of the 1980's they'd want their heads examined.

Lefty Bicek

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually they were lied to,
Time and time again the leave side outright lied to the UK public, that has been proven.

So a conpaign built on proven lies is ok in your view?

I don't take the word of any politician in a political campaign, for anything, even if they're promising me what I want.

You are very stupid if you think that Brexit is the result of campaign slogans.

The Brexit result can easily be explained by region, or in terms of age profile, or in terms of educational achievement, or in terms of 'identity as English'.

All that has been done. It is measurable and definitely makes more sense than your uninformed condescension to people who think differently about something than you do.

In any case, the British have always been 'semi-detached' from the whole project - there has always been scepticism about it. It doesn't need to be caricatured as 'Maggie' or 'Enoch', or 'Maastricht Rebels'. Hugh Gaitskell, and very memorably Tony Benn were notably cautious too.

Also, you keep making claims of EU bullying, time and time again you've been asked to backup those claims?

Well, hardly 'time and time again', but anyway...

While it would have been straightforward, and perfectly legal, to allow Irish banks or the Greek state to default to their private creditors (so as to respect the no-bailout clause), the authorities’ guilty desire to bail out the German and French banks (without telling taxpayers that this was what they were doing) led to the need to violate the no-bailout rule by concocting another rule: the no-default rule, which was never part of Europe’s original set of rules. (...) Both the freshly minted no-default rule and the original no-bailout clause were political whims of the strong disguised as legal constraints upon the weak. In reality, the strong break their rules at will and concoct new rules whenever they think it suits them.

- Yanis Varoufakis, 'The Weak Suffer What They Must'

...the Dublin government succumbed to ECB blackmail: make the German creditors of Ireland’s commercial banks whole, even a bank that was closed down and thus no longer systemically important for Ireland’s financial sector, or else.”

- Yanis Varoufakis, 'The Weak Suffer What They Must'

Plenty other examples, in other countries eg Poland, Hungary. Threatening them when they refuse to bow down to the idiotic Merkel policy on uncontrollable immigration.

Some might say that when you're in the club you play by the club's rules. On the other hand, you'd think the Germans might have some idea how the Poles feel about undesirables streaming over their borders.

It can only be a bullying arrogant mentality which thinks that everyone can be bought with 'structural funds'. Bad misjudgement.

You know Ireland had two referendums on the same issue within 9 years of each other? Also, I'm not referring to the Nice Treaty before your month starts foaming and you start going on about the EU again.

Individual states having their internal issues is not of the same order as issues that profoundly impact the whole union. QED.

Its perfectly fine to have a second ref on the same matter if there's public demand for it and you certainly don't have to wait until the next generation. In relation to Brexit over time there is showing that there is more and more demand for the public to have a say on the final clusterf**k the government come up with.

So you say. Without reference. On the other hand...

Moreover, in so far as there does appear to have been a slight swing to Remain, it is not the result of particular doubt amongst Leave voters about the wisdom of their choice.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/two-years-on-many-a-doubt-but-few-changed-minds/

Considering its such a massive decision with extremely long term impacts on every person in the country its only right they know whats going to happen if they accept the deal thats proposed, because during the last ref they were sold lies.

They might have been offered lies. Doesn't mean they bought them.

fash

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

.

While it would have been straightforward, and perfectly legal, to allow Irish banks or the Greek state to default to their private creditors (so as to respect the no-bailout clause), the authorities’ guilty desire to bail out the German and French banks (without telling taxpayers that this was what they were doing) led to the need to violate the no-bailout rule by concocting another rule: the no-default rule, which was never part of Europe’s original set of rules. (...) Both the freshly minted no-default rule and the original no-bailout clause were political whims of the strong disguised as legal constraints upon the weak. In reality, the strong break their rules at will and concoct new rules whenever they think it suits them.

- Yanis Varoufakis, 'The Weak Suffer What They Must'

...the Dublin government succumbed to ECB blackmail: make the German creditors of Ireland’s commercial banks whole, even a bank that was closed down and thus no longer systemically important for Ireland’s financial sector, or else.”

- Yanis Varoufakis, 'The Weak Suffer What They Must'
.

except for the fact that what Yanis wrote is complete nonsense: the Irish Bank guarantee was an inside FF job designed to steal liquidity from other countries and to ensure that Irish banks (i.e. ones which were friendly to Irish political figures and which could come to arrangements with friends of said figures) would survive.
Its introduction had nothing to do with Europe. In fact, rules were later introduced in the EU to prevent anyone from repeating what Ireland had done.

Yanis merely had a typical victim narrative going wanting to blame others for Greece's mess and refusing to take responsibility.

Lefty Bicek

seamus wrote: »

Yes, this is why sensible democracies only hold elections once every generation.

An election is not a referendum, either in nature or intent. Do you even know the difference ?

2-3 years is more than enough time IMO to pass before holding a second vote on issues of large social significance or economic impact.

No it isn't. For a more sensible view on this kind of thing, see Alex Salmond in relation to the Scottish independence vote ( which was a referendum and not an election, just so you know)...

Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095210/Alex-Salmond-This-is-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-for-Scotland.html

Sensible chap.

It shouldn't be the norm for all issues, but especially where the outcome wasn't an overwhelming majority or the issues have become clearer over time, there's nothing undemocratic about asking a second time. In fact, that's even more democratic than revisiting it once in a generation.

By that logic, most democratic would be doing it over and over, every week. How about daily ? Have a bit of sense, man.

The notion that a question should be asked once and then left alone for years regardless of the consequences of that vote, is always espoused when it suits an agenda.

The notion that things need to be re-run more than once until people see things the way you do, ...always suits an agenda.

First Up

Berserker wrote:

Was freedom to make your own decisions not one of the reasons behind the 1916 rising etc? I recall attending a talk on the matter once and David McWilliams stated that it was one of the main reasons behind that movement.

We are free to make our own decisions.

Lefty Bicek

fash wrote: »

except for the fact that what Yanis wrote is complete nonsense: the Irish Bank guarantee was an inside FF job designed to steal liquidity from other countries and to ensure that Irish banks (i.e. ones which were friendly to Irish political figures and which could come to arrangements with friends of said figures) would survive.
Its introduction had nothing to do with Europe. In fact, rules were later introduced in the EU to prevent anyone from repeating what Ireland had done.

Yanis merely had a typical victim narrative going wanting to blame others for Greece's mess and refusing to take responsibility.

I have no doubt that the Greeks were central to their own misfortune.

I didn't know Trichet was a FF man.

Do you have any thoughts on 'The Trichet Letter' ?

fash

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I have no doubt that the Greeks were central to their own misfortune.

I didn't know Trichet was a FF man.

Do you have any thoughts on 'The Trichet Letter' ?

You mean the letter over 2 years after FF tried to screw the other European states by stealing liquidity without even notifying them, only to discover that it was not a liquidity issue and that through their arrogance, greed and stupidity they had landed the country into bankruptcy? To which the EU later introduced rules preventing such behaviour from every repeating? And which resulted in all the original bondholders who should have been burnt running away with their money? And an entirely different set coming in based on the FF undertakings?
To which Trichet suggested that by doing this FF had s**t the bed and now needed to own it- and should not now renege on their undertakings (and further jeopardising other European states' finances) - if they wanted the EU to help them on it?

Or is it some other letter?

Lefty Bicek

Further to above - the perspective of Ajai Chopra. Not sure which cumann he is from.

“In my view, ultimatums are not the right way to conduct business amongst euro-area members and institutions, and we’ve seen such ultimatums were delivered in the case of Ireland,” he said.

“We’ve also seen them recently in the case of Greece.”

Before a parliamentary inquiry into the banking crisis in Dublin, he said the IMF faced an unusual set of challenges trying to bring stability back to Ireland because euro chiefs had their own interests.

... this resulted in a higher burden for Irish taxpayers and higher Irish public debt”, he said.

support appeared to be only grudgingly provided and its availability and stability did not seem assured,” he added.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ex-imf-chief-ajai-chopra-ecb-only-grudgingly-provided-support-to-irelands-banks-695231.html

Lefty Bicek

fash wrote: »

You mean the letter over 2 years after FF tried to screw the other European states by stealing liquidity without even notifying them, only to discover that it was not a liquidity issue and that through their arrogance, greed and stupidity they had landed the country into bankruptcy? To which the EU later introduced rules preventing such behaviour from every repeating? And which resulted in all the original bondholders who should have been burnt running away with their money? And an entirely different set coming in based on the FF undertakings?
To which Trichet suggested that by doing this FF had s**t the bed and now needed to own it- and should not now renege on their undertakings (and further jeopardising other European states' finances) - if they wanted the EU to help them on it?

Or is it some other letter?

The letter whereby the ECB went beyond it's remit by insisting on austerity (for the Irish people, not for FF) in return for assistance.

It is not the ECB's job to dictate economic and fiscal policies. That is what elected governments do, in the normal course of events.

In Trichet's words -

I am sure you are aware that a swift response is needed before markets open next week.

So a threatening letter, essentially.

Which left the Irish people on the hook for ECB loans to Irish banks, and the senior debts of the rescued banks.

fash

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Further to above - the perspective of Ajai Chopra. Not sure which cumann he is from.

“In my view, ultimatums are not the right way to conduct business amongst euro-area members and institutions, and we’ve seen such ultimatums were delivered in the case of Ireland,” he said.

“We’ve also seen them recently in the case of Greece.”

Before a parliamentary inquiry into the banking crisis in Dublin, he said the IMF faced an unusual set of challenges trying to bring stability back to Ireland because euro chiefs had their own interests.

... this resulted in a higher burden for Irish taxpayers and higher Irish public debt”, he said.

support appeared to be only grudgingly provided and its availability and stability did not seem assured,” he added.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ex-imf-chief-ajai-chopra-ecb-only-grudgingly-provided-support-to-irelands-banks-695231.html

Not sure why he had to represent any "Cumann" - there certainly were ultimata "we can't keep tidying up your crap, the EU has put €138 Bn into your dodgy banks so far as no one else will, but we can't keep doing it" - you can read a detailed EU position here:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/html/irish-letters.en.html
While AJ can criticise the tone of Trichet in his 2010 letters, what more do you expect of the EU?
Why for example did FF guarantee in-place bond holders in 2008?

fash

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

fash wrote: »

You mean the letter over 2 years after FF tried to screw the other European states by stealing liquidity without even notifying them, only to discover that it was not a liquidity issue and that through their arrogance, greed and stupidity they had landed the country into bankruptcy? To which the EU later introduced rules preventing such behaviour from every repeating? And which resulted in all the original bondholders who should have been burnt running away with their money? And an entirely different set coming in based on the FF undertakings?
To which Trichet suggested that by doing this FF had s**t the bed and now needed to own it- and should not now renege on their undertakings (and further jeopardising other European states' finances) - if they wanted the EU to help them on it?

Or is it some other letter?

The letter whereby the ECB went beyond it's remit by insisting on austerity (for the Irish people, not for FF) in return for assistance.

It is not the ECB's job to dictate economic and fiscal policies. That is what elected governments do, in the normal course of events.

In Trichet's words -

I am sure you are aware that a swift response is needed before markets open next week.

So a threatening letter, essentially.

Which left the Irish people on the hook for ECB loans to Irish banks, and the senior debts of the rescued banks.

Threatening to stop serving alcohol to an alcoholic is not a "threat" in a meaningful sense, it is an intervention.
The Irish people were on the hook in September 2008.
November 2010 was 2 years later.

Trichet didn't dictate policy- he stated that Irish dodgy banks couldn't expect to eat all of the emergency EU lending and that the EU needed collateral from the state (i.e. entering a binding bail-out program) to do it further.

Lefty Bicek

fash wrote: »

Not sure why he had to represent any "Cumann"

It was a joke, man. I assumed you knew who Chopra is.

there certainly were ultimata

that the ECB had no right nor remit to issue. That is the end of it.

"we can't keep tidying up your crap

Not we can't, we won't. In spite of plausible arguments in favour of doing so.

'Solidarity' arguments that your betters are very quick to trot out when it suits them.

Still, wasn't it an interesting experiment in what happens when you treat a small nation as an economic laboratory ? How much austerity, hardship, taxation, can be tolerated ? Now we know. Useful information for our 'betters' to have.

While AJ can criticise the tone of Trichet in his 2010 letters, what more do you expect of the EU?

The tone of the letters is the least of his criticism. Don't clutch at straws.

First Up

Will we ever be rid of people regurgitating the myths and the crap about the Irish bail out and Greece?

Lefty Bicek

fash wrote: »

Threatening to stop serving alcohol to an alcoholic is not a "threat" in a meaningful sense, it is an intervention.

They didn't threaten to stop serving the alcohol. They said they would keep serving the alcohol if we did what they demanded.

Some intervention.

fash

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It was a joke, man. I assumed you knew who Chopra is.

I assume almost everyone in Ireland knows who AJ is.

that the ECB had no right nor remit to issue. That is the end of it.

It had every right- it literally says it in the regulation empowering the EU to provide the emergency funding.

Not we can't, we won't. In spite of plausible arguments in favour of doing so.

What "plausible arguments" were there for the EU bailing out FF?

While AJ can criticise the tone of Trichet in his 2010 letters, what more do you expect of the EU?

The tone of the letters is the least of his criticism. Don't clutch at straws.

What else do you think he was criticising?

fash

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

They didn't threaten to stop serving the alcohol. They said they would keep serving the alcohol if we did what they demanded.

Yes that is what a threat to stop serving alcohol is...

Lefty Bicek

First Up wrote: »

Will we ever be rid of people regurgitating the myths and the crap about the Irish bail out and Greece?

Good man. Short and sweet.

You've gone away now to read up, having decided what you're going to think about it.

Billy86

First Up wrote: »

Will we ever be rid of people regurgitating the myths and the crap about the Irish bail out and Greece?

No no, we should have done exactly as Greece did. Then all would be fine now, just like it is in Greece.

Lefty Bicek

fash wrote: »

Yes that is what a threat to stop serving alcohol is...

There was NO possibility that the threat could have been faced down by Ireland. They knew that.

Anyway, enough of the alcohol analogy, it's limited.

Interesting though, you think others know what 'interventions' are in the best interest of the Irish people.

Lux23

Because nobody but eegits wants one.

First Up

Lefty Bicek wrote:

There was NO possibility that the threat could have been faced down by Ireland.

That horse (and the others you keep flogging) are long dead. Just bury them and be grateful that the adults are in charge.

Lefty Bicek

First Up wrote: »

That horse (and the others you keep flogging) are long dead. Just bury them and be grateful that the adults are in charge.

... and then you ran away.

Bye.