I have been slowly learning that there are some people and groups that one should never quote here in Ireland. One is Margaret Thatcher and another is the Cato Inst. So it’s probably not worth while referencing the extensive work that has been done in the UK on the costs and benefits of membership of the EU. Although they are a different country, they are not that different to us.

Despite the limitations of cost/benefit analyses, is anyone aware of such a study having been done here since 1992 (Maastricht)? Over 800,000 people did not take the time to vote No last year because of Sinn Fein.

Regards,

Neil S

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 interests 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.

A property bubble and crash became inevitable?

So it had nothing to do with greedy Irish Bankers?
The crash had nothing to do with the parasites in New York, London and Berlin?

The simple fact of the matter is that the regulatory authority failed miserably to fulfill is role.

That has nothing at all to do with the the ECB or the EU.

So here is a Cato report from 2003 which sets out or rather confirms many of the concerns people have about what kind of ’single market’ the EU has become. An excerpt is included below the link.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-489es.html

‘Most EU economies are beset by deep
structural problems, including rigid labor
markets, restrictive regulations, expensive
environmental and safety standards, high
taxes, and large unfunded liabilities. As World
Bank data show, between 1992 and 2001 the
German economy grew on average by 1.45 percent
per year and the French economy by 1.88
percent. The Irish economy, which is more
akin to the American model, grew by 7.65 percent
during that same period and the British
economy by 2.58 percent. Between 1992 and
2001 the U.S. economy experienced an average
growth of 3.46 percent per year.83
When it comes to employment, the EU
also lags behind. Over the past decade, the
rate of unemployment in Germany and
France has been hovering around 10 percent,
which is roughly double that of the United
States. About 40 percent of the unemployed
in Europe have been without jobs for more
than a year. A comparable figure for the
United States is only 6 percent. Since 1970
the U.S. economy has created 57 million new
jobs. The EU, despite having a larger population,
has not created a single net new job in
the private sector since 1970. The only
increase in employment that the EU experienced
was in the government sector.84
Europe has also lagged in productivity.
American workers, for example, generate 27
cents more output per dollar of input than
European workers do. In France and Belgium,
employees are, in addition to their vacations,
entitled to at least 26 paid national holidays.
The average German is paid for 14.5 months
of work per year but works only 9.5 months.’

Regards,

Neil S

“he EU is not punitive and there would be no question of throwing Ireland out [of the EU] or taking repercussions” (Catherine Day - reported in Irish Times the Monday before last)

“There will be no discrimination against Irish people if there is a No vote. You will not hear from me any threat to Ireland.” (Commissioner Barroso)

Brian, I am actually very pro-EU. It is Lisbon I am virulently opposed to and the Irish people rejected it. So I make no apologies for my stance.

Michael Hennigan, given you are involved in finfact.com I find your contribution surprising. Here is my summary of some data I found on your site:

Irish exports have risen 5% in the year up to April, compared to a drop of 29% in Germany. In the year up to June, Irish exports also rose 5%. Irish industrial production rose 8.9% in the year to July – rising by a huge 68.3% in the American pharmaceutical sector here.

In that context, the argument that this recession is related to a Lisbon-related exodus of FDI does not stand up to scrutiny. The 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 interests 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.

Lisbon is about the race to the bottom and cheap labour. This is in no way the fault of migrant workers, but rather the political and corporate elites who use exploitation to line their pockets while using Political-Correctness to prevent discussion on the matter. The Viking Case in the ECJ referred to limitations on workers-rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter also increases the pool of cheap labour through Article 15(1) which legalises work for asylum-seekers by stating: “Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.”. Consider the impact of that provision given the British optout protocol from the Charter. As with 2004, we are effectively being asked to agree to something others in the EU won’t. As Ireland and Malta would become the only English-speaking countries forced to allow asylum-seekers to work, it can be expected a large increase in illegal immigration would result. Furthermore, Paragraph 7 of the referendum legislation (28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009) states that the Government and Oireachtas may take us into the Schengen area, meaning the abolition of passport checks on travellers from 25 countries at Irish ports/airports. This fits into my wider point: Lisbon will increase unemployment through the race to the bottom and facilitation of greater cheap labour movement into Ireland. That is why fatcats support it. With respect to Ryanair, it wants to take over Aer Lingus and the European Court of First Instance in March overturned a Commission ban on concessions to Ryanair by Charleroi Airtport, Belgium. They also remember the Commission blocking their previous attempt to take over Aer Lingus and hope supporting Lisbon will earn them brownie-points in Brussels. Intel was fined €1.06 by the Commission, and is currently appealing it to the ECJ. What better way to earn brownie-points with them than helping them get their federalist treaty through. I’m voting no. The men and women of 1916 died for our freedom - not to swap one empire for another. Yes to Europe - No to Lisbon.

Are you attributing the ‘pounds, shillings and pence’ remark to me? It was Finbar who made that remark, not I. What little money I have these days is in euros and cents anyway.

Prof O’Hagan said in the report that Ireland has litte or no control over environmental damage.

How would Ireland fare outside of Lisbon on, for example Global Warming negotiations?

We could go to Copenhagen and argue for a modest straight carbon tax. The cost of this could be negative if the least economic sources of CO2 were targeted first in the true spirit of a CO2 tax.

Under Lisbon our policy would come from what the EU agreed. Their 2012-2020 plans could cost Ireland €1 to €2bn per year and would have no more effect on the climate than the above proposal.

The report makes the same point about our lack of control over threats to energy supplies. What is meant by this? It is in the producer’s interest that the product gets delivered to the customer because that’s how they get paid. Surely as it is their money to loose and to earn, they would be better than govts at this. So what will Brussels do to improve the supply of energy?

They have already tried to improve (secure) the supply of food through the CAP but this has only resulted in higher than normal prices.

These were the first two points made in the report. The rest is not very convincing.

Lisbon will also bring in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is unequivocally defended by the Yes side as improving workers rights. But will it also improve our international competitiveness?

Regards,

Neil S

“Ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, or not ratifying it, will make no difference to that.”

I will have to apologise for the use of a general rather than a specific example, but I think the point still stands.

“The only way to avoid future ECB increases in interest rates is to leave the euro, create a new small currency of our own, peg it to sterling…it doesn’t bear thinking about the consequences to our economy, short and long-term.”

Forgive me for not breaking out in a cold sweat here.
There are actually merits to this idea, and obviously the opposite of merits too. But it could, if not necessarily should, be done.

This would probably be worth creating a thread on the forum???

Just a few points: We had our own original currency once
We could peg to sterling, dollar, gold, or even euro?
We could print it to whatever size we want.
We could orbit at rates and valuations that suit us.

“If we weren’t in the eurozone, we’d be Iceland long before now.”

Again no! If we didnt have the euro, our CB could have taken a much more activist role in deflating the bubble, rather than watching from the sidelines. And more than likely would have done so too!
Why not Switzerland?

Al

Yes. We’re about as politically bankrupt as economically! Our political system has been blamed. Certainly our local democracy is a bit of a mess. About the only real power councilors have is over planning. I think we mostly just get the politicians we deserve though. In many ways we might be better off just outsourcing our problems to Europe. They probably would do a better job. But I kind of think that is a cop out. Maybe if we screw up enough times we’ll eventually figure things out for ourselves.

“It’s not really a grass roots thing. That makes me wary of where this project will end up. You can blame my perhaps unjust cynicism towards politicians for this.”

You don’t have to be wary as to what the legacy of the “grass roots thing” in Ireland has been.

The results of Tammany Hall politics are clear for Europeans to see.

Little if any accountability; an incompetent political class that has over-feathered its nest and a ruined economy.

The “grass roots” in some counties has up to half council membership in the control of property interests.

The biggest “reform plan” in recent decades was the “lucky dip” decentralisation stroke.

The camel seldom sees his own hump!

We should get off the high horse and sort out the mess at home before pontificating to anyone else.

Believe me, I’m not that enthusiastic about Europe! I just believe that a ‘yes’ to Lisbon is in our best interests, especially our economic interests,

I am enthusiastic about Europe. I have no problems about heading down the federalists road.

As I stated before, there is nothing in Lisbon2 that is in our Economic Interest.

What Lisbon2 is, and I agree, is about perception.

You said earlier: I, for one, will be dipping into it for arguments to support the ‘Yes’ case when I’m blogging and canvassing in the weeks ahead. What makes the report so useful is that it contains authoritative comments on some of the questions that were put to respondents, including Prof. Lane, for example.

Make the case here of the economic benefits to Ireland of Lisbon2.

I want to see it ratified, but not by using terror tactics of economic doom to persuade my fellow citizens to back it.

Using the economic arguement, to me anyway, is just lazy politics.

Believe me, I’m not that enthusiastic about Europe! I just believe that a ‘yes’ to Lisbon is in our best interests, especially our economic interests, and that regardless of its shortcomings, the Lisbon Treaty is the best deal that could be agreed to move the EU forward at this point in time.

Like you, I find some of the ‘Yes’ campaigners as obnoxious as some of the ‘No’ groups, but liking or disliking them is irrelevant. There are lots of threads over on irishelection.com on Lisbon, if you want to get into the political debate and, as you say, hand this forum back to the economists!

We’re part of the Eurozone. Ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, or not ratifying it, will make no difference to that. The only way to avoid future ECB increases in interest rates is to leave the euro, create a new small currency of our own, peg it to sterling…it doesn’t bear thinking about the consequences to our economy, short and long-term. If we weren’t in the eurozone, we’d be Iceland long before now.

Yes, it is a legislative role. Before the Commission can bring forward proposed legislation, the proposal will have to be circulated to the national parliaments of member states. If a certain number of those parliaments object to the proposal - can’t think of the exact number but off the top of my head I think it’s one third - then the proposal is kaput. If you’re undecided about which way to vote, the best neutral source for information is the Referendum Commission site http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie, which should help you make up your mind.

This probably isn’t really the place for detailed discussion of Lisbon. But regarding Zimbabwe, sure yes if one is hungry and can’t feed one’s children one obviously wouldn’t be too worried about the finer points of democracy! But I would hope Ireland, even figuratively, hasn’t reached that point at least yet! I’d buy more strongly into Lisbon if the democratic checks and balances on the centralization of power were stronger. The so-called “orange card” procedure is something of a sop in my opinion. It doesn’t give the parliaments any real blocking power. Like the citizen’s initiative and mentions of subsidiarity it seems more a symbolic gesture. I wish these mechanisms had more teeth but they really don’t. I’ve been on a number of types of committee in the past. Rarely are explicit votes actually taken. In the council it will be known if a country intends to use a veto. Horsetrading is done as you say before any vote might be taken. But the dynamics will likely be very different with and without a unanimity requirement. As you say the EU is not the “Roman Empire”. A United States of Europe if properly structured and with well thought out democratic checks and balances might be a very good thing. You’re obviously very enthusiastic about Europe. Good for you! But the European political class is the primary driving force behind this project. It’s not really a grass roots thing. That makes me wary of where this project will end up. You can blame my perhaps unjust cynicism towards politicians for this. Anyway I’d better give back this forum to the economists!

Just for clarity, this enhanced role for national parliments is not a legislative role, is it?
Why would it be important?
If the enhanced role occurs at the same time as EU lw trumping nation law then how enhanced can that be?

Still undecided
Al

Repeat a few times
Etc

Al

A trip to Zimbabwe might enlighten us all as to what happens to a society when its economy goes south?

Under the Lisbon Treaty there’s an enhanced role for national parliaments in making EU law, not the reverse, as you state above. In practice also, the right of ‘veto’ is rarely used. Business is done by consensus and old-fashioned political horsetrading. So losing the ‘veto’ in a certain number of areas is not the great loss it’s made out to be by some No campaigners. The EU is not the Roman Empire: the only powers it has are those conferred on it by the member states.

As for Ganley and his demand for a debate on the economic implications of Lisbon, I’ll be fascinated to see what he comes up with! A three year old child should be well able for him on that topic.

He was prepared to take on fellow economists.

What do you folks..is AA up to the challenge?

Are there any of us posting to this site that believe either of them could take him on and win?

@Veronica
We now have the opportunity to see how valuable the survey of the economists will prove to be.

At least with Nama, we had enough time to be persuasive. We do not have that luxury this time.

Ganley is back.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6832496.ece

Good point!

Every vote presented to the electorate so far has been auction politics.
Europe has been presented to the people as largese that we can claim, and thank our national politicans for it.

Now, it is plain that they are out of their league, in more that this situation at the moment.
But, it seems the political class europe wide is little different: re: current draft of the EU consitution that we are detouring around, Gestaing is definitely no Lycurgus!!

Personally, I am still undecided on the vote.
Almost embarassed to vote either way witnessing the panto.
Lisbon is a half measure that may delay or abort the european project.
Would prefer to be voting on a proper constitution, a real discipline on power.

Al

“the ending of the prospect of war and the enslavement of millions in Eastern Europe.

The success of the EU cannot be denied.

However, even I, a confirmed EU supporter, am getting tired of our politicians using the war arguement as a good enough reason to keep supporting everything the EU throws at us.

All that does is show that they are not capable of explaining Lisbon to the electorate and selling the yes vote to them.

Everything so far has been about what we have got out of Europe. The arguement this time seems to be too focused on the negative impact of voting no. We have had even more of it today.

I sometimes despair at the lack of clarity and vision by our elected elites.

I remember a writing tutor I had many years ago telling us…..
dont say there is a girl crying in her bedroom…….bring her out and let us see her crying.

Support for Lisbon should be sought on the positives of a yes vote, not the negatives of a no vote.