Economic consequences of a NO vote?

[code twinkle]

Naoise Nunn (the least of many commentators who have spoken on this) stated at the weekend that a No vote to Lisbon would be suicidal for the Irish economy in its current state.

Can anyone here, who knows about these things, tell me what are the actual negative implications of a No vote for the Irish economy?

[121.5]

Naoise Nunn (the least of many commentators who have spoken on this) stated at the weekend that a No vote to Lisbon would be suicidal for the Irish economy in its current state.

Can anyone here, who knows about these things, tell me what are the actual negative implications of a No vote for the Irish economy?

Noise who?

oh yes Noisey Nunn

Noisey is no stranger to putting his 'values' and or 'beliefs' to one side in order to gain financially....

that makes Noisey irrelevant....

[FutureTaoiseach]

None. Lisbon would allow the European Council of levy Euro-taxes under Article 269 and Lisbon outlaws the 12.5% corporate tax-rate under Article 113 of the TFEU as a "distortion of competition".

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its
objectives and carry through its policies. The Council, acting in accordance with a
special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European
Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system
of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new
categories of own resources or abolish an existing category.

In a recession, it is all the more important we retain control of our taxation system.

[constitutionus]

ive been racking my brain trying to figure this out too and heres what ive come up with

the state wont be able to benifit from the taxes accrueing from weapons manufacturing and development firms that we could set up here in conjunction with the EDA and all the lovely moola you'd get flogging arms to "onside" third world dictators.

its pretty much the only money maker i can see in lisbon and i have to admit , immoral or not, an embryonic military industial complex funded by 27 members states will make a SHYTE load of cash

people can laugh if they want but we know the gov has no problem with this as the national pension reserve fund has bought shares in weapons manufacturing firms before and if memory serve theres a company somewehere in ireland that makes chips used in tomohawk missiles guidance systems that isnt being ran out of the country (the rational being said chips are also used in mobile phones) .

[nixmix]

Naoise Nunn (the least of many commentators who have spoken on this) stated at the weekend that a No vote to Lisbon would be suicidal for the Irish economy in its current state.

Can anyone here, who knows about these things, tell me what are the actual negative implications of a No vote for the Irish economy?

Scaremongering bs from Naoise. It's amazing how these commentators can throw out statements like this and not be asked to detail how a No would be suicidal!

Our first No had no economic consequences as will our second No.

[Clanrickard]

There are no consequences to voting NO. None at all. The single market is up and running and cannot be revoked. We can vote NO safe in the knowledge that much as though they would like to punish us for our uppidness there isn't a god damn thing the euronuts in Paris and Berlin can do about it. NIE, NIET, NON, NEIN, NíL. This monstrosity belongs in the bin.

[TimBuckII]

In Dec 07 Ahern signed the Lisbon Treaty.
In Dec 07 Ahern queried why people cribbing about the economy don't commit suicide. THis shows how at the time of signing the treaty the Government were so secure in the strength of the Irish economy they felt they could make comments like this.

Considering this it is very hard for me to believe the treaty can help an economy going in the opposite direction the architects and signatories had forseen. The treaty was based on false information regarding the economy.

It would be like using a fire escape plan in a flood. It doesn't add up imho.

[TimBuckII]

While we are cutting spending on much needed services in health and education we have a treaty telling us to increase military spending. Surely this contradicts measures taken by FF to save the economy?

[constitutionus]

While we are cutting spending on much needed services in health and education we have a treaty telling us to increase military spending. Surely this contradicts measures taken by FF to save the economy?

ah but shure did you not hear pat cox ?

"progressivly upgrading our miliatry on an ongoing basis" wont cost a red cent according to him

[code twinkle]

ive been racking my brain trying to figure this out too and heres what ive come up with

the state wont be able to benifit from the taxes accrueing from weapons manufacturing and development firms that we could set up here in conjunction with the EDA and all the lovely moola you'd get flogging arms to "onside" third world dictators.

its pretty much the only money maker i can see in lisbon and i have to admit , immoral or not, an embryonic military industial complex funded by 27 members states will make a SHYTE load of cash

people can laugh if they want but we know the gov has no problem with this as the national pension reserve fund has bought shares in weapons manufacturing firms before and if memory serve theres a company somewehere in ireland that makes chips used in tomohawk missiles guidance systems that isnt being ran out of the country (the rational being said chips are also used in mobile phones) .

I'm very inclined to agree with you!

But its very confusing to hear a mantra over recent days about how NOW more than ever, we need a yes to lisbon.

I assumed there must be more genuine economic facts behind this statement - maybe ones I wouldn't consider important enough to change my stance, but at least that there are some actual economic ramifications.

To my uneducated mind, the fact that we will remain in the Eurozone pretty much ties the hands of any p*ssed off EU member states even if they were inclined to actually punish us financially. But I thought I mightn't have fully grasped the situation.

Is there anyone on the yes side who can cite some? Or any economic experts?