The side with the most specific arguments is usually right.

If the "yes" side trots out vague platitudes about "European integration," "securing our place at the table" and "the good will of our European partners," then it means that they have no real arguments and have to fall back on "Bruxelles, right or wrong."

If the "no" side trots out vague platitudes about "national sovereignty," "eurocrats" and "distant Bruxelles," then it means that they have no real arguments and have to fall back on "my country, right or wrong."

"[Political entity], right or wrong," is bullshit demagoguery, not a basis for rational policymaking.

In this case, you have a "yes" side that pretty much universally acknowledges that the treaty is fake tits on a zombie useless as policy, but fall back on ideological commitment to increased European integration.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

Cycling into work this morning I passed Sinn Féin and Libertas posters and wished there were more of them.
Declan Ganley took part in a TV debate last week and I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything he had to say on the economy, thinking perhaps I only differ with his ideas on EU governance.

Shudder.

Taking it as given that the treaty text is itself a crock of shit, I've been stuck in a loop, weighing up the political ramifications of a Yes and No vote, and whether either could lead to an effective solution to the credit crisis.

In my ever-optimistic world, I hold dear to the thought that a No vote could force the issue, and lead to sweeping reform.

I'm pretty sure however that a "No" vote will see little more than op-eds with titles such as "What now for Ireland's Euro Experiment?", and at best, the attachment of a random Declaration so that the referendum can be held again.

That then leads me to a "Yes", to at least give Merkel something to sell to the German electorate prior to the considered introduction of effective reform of the Eurozone. However, at this stage, I don't think ECOFIN could be farther from "considered" and "effective", and so I'm left back at the start.

Senator Imelda Henry called to my door last night while I was putting the children to bed. She smiled, and proferred soundbites about Stability and Good Housekeeping. I asked how long it will be until the imbalances across Eurozone countries are dealt with. Without skipping a beat, she told me that this referendum isn't about other countries, it is about Ireland and whether we want growth.

Piece of shit.

One obvious example from this side of the pond would be the anti-segregation laws, where the feds came in and forced Alabama and the others to follow national policy. Lots of other examples as well...

At some point the question of whether or not to have a full-blown federal Europe is going to actually have to be confronted.