They are not all the same this is something FF spin docs have been having us say for years the other one is "Aw sure who else is there".
I'm sad to say that I agree with RMCF's assessment. The one country that got a vote on it will be bullied into accepting it the second time round. Protocol's summary sounds reassuringly benign but Lisbon dilutes the voting strength of Ireland and other small countries and surrenders many vetoes to QMV. It's another step along the road to a Federal Europe, I wish they'd be honest about their project. I'll be voting 'no'; at least, if it's carried, we will likely never be asked to vote on another EU treaty.I think the Lisbon vote will get passed easily this time around, simply because many are afraid to vote 'no'. The country is banjax'd and they will be told that if we want to improve the country, jobs, wealth, future etc they must vote 'yes', and they will.
forget about the hand out....lets just tell them to get stuffed!Yes, maybe we should tell them to get stuffed again... and then go looking for another hand-out.
yes, what have they ever given us (other than forcing equality and environmental legislation on us... Oh, and there were all the hand-outs... And the stability pact that kept us from going off the rails even more than we have ... And the membership of the euro that's kept us out of icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).
Yes, maybe we should tell them to get stuffed again... And then go looking for another hand-out.
One might argue that membership of the Euro, and therefore the surrender of any control over our exchange rate and interest rate (which are managed to suit Germany and France), helped fuel the property bubble and has tied our hands in relation to competitiveness, with no option to devalue our currency.. .and the membership of the Euro that's kept us out of Icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).
+1i for one feel very skeptical about the huge "yes" push and the lack of information about all of the treaty and how it changes how the eu works. I did some research on it last time and was not happy about how they want it to work. I voted no the last time and will do so again. Our "leaders" are starting to behave like dictators on this. Please respect our wishes.
... and the membership of the Euro that's kept us out of Icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).
One might argue that membership of the Euro, and therefore the surrender of any control over our exchange rate and interest rate (which are managed to suit Germany and France), helped fuel the property bubble and has tied our hands in relation to competitiveness, with no option to devalue our currency.
Well, there's no way of knowing. Pre-€ Irish Central Bank rates (around 1998) were, if I recall, something around 6% . . which were then slashed to converge with European rates ahead of monetary union. Given the proportion of trade we do with the US and the UK and other non-€ countries I don't believe that the 'benefits' or € membership compensate for the loss of control of our own exchange and interest rates. I suspect that there was little thought put into joining the €, just the usual Irish political desire to be seen as 'committed Europeans'.There's absolutely no reason to believe the gutless central bank would have raised interest rates (as our main trading partners were lowering theirs) during the growth of the housing bubble.
Well, there's no way of knowing. Pre-€ Irish Central Bank rates (around 1998) were, if I recall, something around 6% . . which were then slashed to converge with European rates ahead of monetary union. Given the proportion of trade we do with the US and the UK and other non-€ countries I don't believe that the 'benefits' or € membership compensate for the loss of control of our own exchange and interest rates. I suspect that there was little thought put into joining the €, just the usual Irish political desire to be seen as 'committed Europeans'.
Maybe it is a 'stretch' but rates were much higher pre-€ and lending terms were much stricter before the advent of the Regulator in 2003 who I think was responsible for keeping an eye on bank lending policies (but maybe I'm mistaken there).However, the central bank showed little inclination to slow the asset bubble using the tools at its disposal so it's a stretch to imagine they would have braved bucking a GLOBAL trend of central banks lowering interest rates and keeping them low for several years post 9/11.
I'm not sure how you distilled that; I don't blame the ECB for our problems; I blame Ahern and Cowen.It's even more fantastical to then turn around and state that the ECB bears a large proportion of the blame for the bubble because they lowered interest rates. Despite the fact the Irish government encouraged the bubble (they thought it was a sign "de economy" was healthy bless 'em).
Maybe it is a 'stretch' but rates were much higher pre-€ and lending terms were much stricter before the advent of the Regulator in 2003 who I think was responsible for keeping an eye on bank lending policies (but maybe I'm mistaken there).
Can someone please give me in layman's tears reasons to vote yes or no.
If I was to take the stance of voting NO to oust the government, it wouldn't just be because of the (relatively trivial) levies. It would be for the following:I'm 100% convinced there's people here who want to vote no to get rid of FF purely because of the income & pension levies imposed on them recently.
Is pretty much happening anyway.)The banks and builders go bankrupt, liquidity seizes up, more businesses go bust, 800,000 people on the dole
DerKaiser - would you vote for FF?