Michael Noonan fires first shots in referendum battle

Sand

Karl Whelan has made a good point on Irisheconomy.ie - linking a no vote to a euro exit, as the government is doing, will increase pressure on Irish bank deposits - perhaps inducing another bank run as people presume a sizeable no vote in polling means a Euro exit will shortly follow.

For all the temptation to present such an agreement as a “yes or no” moment on euro membership (a temptation last seen with Mrs. Merkel’s “ya oder nein” moment) the truth is that there is no clearly defined way to expel a country from the single currency. Beyond the potential of a bullying approach back-firing with the Irish public, a focus on a referendum as a decision about euro membership risks triggering a massive bank run as depositors take flight to avoid the redenomination that is being threatened.

The Irish public have a history of responding poorly to threats as a motivation for voting for EU treaties. And if Mr. Noonan is keen on triggering another disastrous bank run (this time also involving retail depositors) then he should keep talking this way and linking the probability of Ireland being in the euro with the latest polls on how likely the referendum is to pass.

Basically what Noonan is saying is that if first newspaper polls show a 40%+ no vote you should rush down to the bank and withdraw your money as soon as you can.

walshb

Why would the governemnet need to scare us; referendum or not, they will keep putting it to the people until the peo;e vote the way the governmnet want.

Lisbon?

Nice?

SuperMacs

meglome wrote: »

The next time some says this they should have to repeat the 21 items on this list 1000 times.



The whole Lisbon campaign was a joke but the No side lying was far worse. And let's not pretend voting No is some point of principle for you, my guess is you voted No all along.

So true. And the point I have being making about the No campaigns bunch of lies, that have never materialised.

My guess is, if this has to go to a vote, the NO side will pull the same arguments a-la-carte like before, and start scaring everyone about the great big hairy EU monster that hides under the Brussells bed.

Scofflaw

walshb wrote: »

Why would the governemnet need to scare us; referendum or not, they will keep putting it to the people until the peo;e vote the way the governmnet want.

Lisbon?

Nice?

The people vote the way the people want every time, though. I voted No at Nice 1 because I felt the government did an appalling job of telling us what the Treaty was about - and I mean, much worse than Lisbon 1, which wasn't great either. I wish I still had a copy of the Nice 1 leaflet, which literally said "this is a complicated document, and you should trust the government to have made the best choice". I voted Yes at Nice 2 because I felt the government had done a decent job of explaining their position and dealing with the concerns raised.

People voted down the Oireachtas Inquiries amendment by a very similar margin to Nice or Lisbon 1, and for similar reasons - the government didn't explain well what was happening, and the opposition to it raised concerns that the government failed to address.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

View wrote: »

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

You are totally right. No one knows the contents of the treaty. So why would Minister Nonaan say that the referendum would be based on in or out of the Euro if he does not know the exact contents of the treaty that is yet to be deliberated upon?

View

Laois_Man wrote: »

In the stated objectives of what they would like the treaty to look like, there was a desire for a move towards a Common economic policy - a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax.

There is no mention of any form of tax, much less either a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax, in the "Statement by the Euro area heads of state or government" issued after the Council meeting.

We could of course object to something that isn't there but we'd look a bit stupid demanding the removal of it!

View

SeanW wrote: »

There's been some strong indication that a transactions tax will be in it, i.e. it was in the Treaty that the U.K and Hungary vetoed. Only a fool would assume that a new Eurozone pact would not have something like that. It's also safe to assume the French will want to have something in there about common Corporation Tax. That's been a hobby horse of theres for a long time and they've made it clear they're not going to take no for an answer!

There is no reason why we should act based on assumptions about what might or might not be there. When we see what is formally proposed in the course of the negotiations, we can consider the proposals and see just how much of a problem they might or might not be for us.

goat2

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

where did i hear that before

meglome

View wrote: »

We could of course object to something that isn't there but we'd look a bit stupid demanding the removal of it!

Isn't that exactly what we did on Lisbon 1? Great to see we haven't learned a thing.

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

You are totally right. No one knows the contents of the treaty. So why would Minister Nonaan say that the referendum would be based on in or out of the Euro if he does not know the exact contents of the treaty that is yet to be deliberated upon?

I suggest you ask Minister Noonan.

You do realise though that should the people reject the proposed treaty, it is the perjogative of the government to decide to seek our withdrawal from the Euro should they so choose?

SeanW

View wrote: »

There is no reason why we should act based on assumptions about what might or might not be there. When we see what is formally proposed in the course of the negotiations, we can consider the proposals and see just how much of a problem they might or might not be for us.

If the Treaty that was just rejected about Debt-to-GDP limitations was just that - a treaty limiting deficits, then why were the British so concerned about the City of London financial services sector? How could a treaty that ONLY imposes fiscal discipline hurt the City in anyway?

Answer: it cannot. The treaty had something in it about a forex transaction tax, and its safe to assume the new treaty will too. Along with possible Corp. Tax harmonisation.

That is what there needs to be a guard against, if the text that does come out has ANYTHING in it other than safeguards on runaway deficits, IMO it should be rejected out of hand.

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

If the Treaty that was just rejected about Debt-to-GDP limitations was just that - a treaty limiting deficits, then why were the British so concerned about the City of London financial services sector? How could a treaty that ONLY imposes fiscal discipline hurt the City in anyway?

Answer: it cannot. The treaty had something in it about a forex transaction tax, and its safe to assume the new treaty will too. Along with possible Corp. Tax harmonisation.

That is what there needs to be a guard against, if the text that does come out has ANYTHING in it other than safeguards on runaway deficits, IMO it should be rejected out of hand.

Or perhaps not - nice little WSJ article:

Last week's last-ditch summit to save the euro apparently didn't. So, back to the drawing board, and yet more "make-or-break" meetings dragging on into the early hours appear to await us.

All such meetings are surrounded by hyperbole, for which my own trade shares its responsibility, disingenuousness and even dishonesty. But last week's was an object lesson in how in subsequent discussions of things that aren't true, or are half true, are accepted as facts. Here are a few.

Prime Minister David Cameron's "veto" prevented powers from being relinquished from London to Brussels.

No. The proposal was to allow treaty changes so that euro-zone member countries, and any other government that chose to follow the same rules, would more tightly coordinate their budgets and government debts and be subject to near-automatic discipline if they didn't comply. There was never any question of the U.K. being subject to these rules.

Britain was seeking an opt-out for EU regulation on financial services.

No. It was suggesting a unanimous vote on certain financial-services issues, rather than the qualified majority vote. According to the paper, which was first obtained by the Daily Telegraph, these issues included transferring further supervisory powers from national to EU agencies, any actions that affect tax revenues or substantial levies on the financial sector.

It also sought other guarantees, including "no discrimination within the single market for financial services on the grounds of the member states in which an institution is established." (This is an effort to challenge the European Central Bank policy insisting on clearing houses being in the euro zone and thereby having access to ECB credit.)

The nearest thing to a proposed opt-out, says Mats Persson of the euro-skeptic think tank Open Europe, was an effort to secure exemption from some EU regulations for businesses (say, hedge fund managers) from outside the EU that only operate in one country.

Britain was seeking to block a financial-transactions tax.

No. It already has a veto on that.

Britain was seeking weaker regulation for its banks.

No. One thing it wanted the freedom to do was impose tougher capital requirements on U.K. banks—an area where the European Union is looking to introduce maximum requirements. Britain wanted the right "to impose higher capital requirements on certain institutions to reflect the potential call on U.K. taxpayers of the U.K.'s large and international financial sector," the paper said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ninty9er

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's been said many times there is no mechanism to leave the Euro and still remain within the EU.

I call bull****. The EMU is not an EU Instution, neither is the ECB. How do you think Britain and the Nordic members have been functioning for the last decade?

Leave, peg your currency to the Euro for 3 years and then return to markets. If I had any significant amount of money now I'd be putting it in commodities.

Scofflaw

ninty9er wrote: »

I call bull****. The EMU is not an EU Instution, neither is the ECB.

No, the ECB is an EU institution, and the euro is part of the treaties too.

ninty9er wrote: »

How do you think Britain and the Nordic members have been functioning for the last decade?

Technically, they have derogations - they are "yet to adopt" the euro.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

Sweden are not in euro and do not have an official opt out like UK or Denmark in treaties.

They are breaking the treaty yet are not being fined or sued.
If they do get sued then the EU project will be in deep trouble, proposing things that would bring member states to the EU justice courts while having the likes of Sweden continuing to flaunt the treaty is a joke.

View

wiseguy wrote: »

Sweden are not in euro and do not have an official opt out like UK or Denmark in treaties.

They are breaking the treaty yet are not being fined or sued.
If they do get sued then the EU project will be in deep trouble, proposing things that would bring member states to the EU justice courts while having the likes of Sweden continuing to flaunt the treaty is a joke.

Sweden aren't breaking the treaties though.

Prior to adopt the Euro, a state must be a member of the ERM II mechanism for at least two years. Sweden is not a member of the ERM II and it is up to it when it joins (Subsequent Accession Treaties tightened that loop-hole up though!)

Eliot Rosewater

ninty9er wrote: »

Leave, peg your currency to the Euro for 3 years and then return to markets. If I had any significant amount of money now I'd be putting it in commodities.

How does one actually peg one's currency to another? I have a feeling it involves the government or the central bank actively trading on the currency markets to keep the difference at a minimum. I believe this is what Denmark does to keep their currency within an appropriate bound around some value the euro.

If this is the case, then I don't see how Ireland can peg without help from the Eurozone countries. Even if it isn't the case (so that Ireland just offered legal guarantees that the Irish currency could be traded through the government for euros) I still can't see it working. The Eurozone is an enormous economy, and Ireland is very small country. We wouldn't have the financial power to sustain those kind of guarantees.

Apparently the Swiss government is even struggling to keep their exchange rate with the euro sane enough to keep exports and imports flowing.

wiseguy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How does one actually peg one's currency to another? I have a feeling it involves the government or the central bank actively trading on the currency markets to keep the difference at a minimum. I believe this is what Denmark does to keep their currency within an appropriate bound around some value the euro.

If this is the case, then I don't see how Ireland can peg without help from the Eurozone countries. Even if it isn't the case (so that Ireland just offered legal guarantees that the Irish currency could be traded through the government for euros) I still can't see it working. The Eurozone is an enormous economy, and Ireland is very small country. We wouldn't have the financial power to sustain those kind of guarantees.

Apparently the Swiss government is even struggling to keep their exchange rate with the euro sane enough to keep exports and imports flowing.

An alternative is a trade weighted peg to a basket of currencies of our major trading partners.
About 30% dollar, 30% pound and 20% euro + few others.
This can be adjusted as trade grows/shrinks with any country.

As for the Swiss, their struggle is figuring out what to do with all that money flowing in, which is not a bad thing, they are issuing bonds at zero to slightly negative rates, entities are giving them money for safekeeping and know their will loose some! thats not a bad position to be in.

Being tied to a currency where one country {Germany} has a defacto control +influence of the ECB, and this CB has no intention of focusing on job creation or actually cares as to what happens in Ireland, is insane! also considering that Germany is not our major trading partner when it comes to exports {mind you not as many BMWs around now either}

Also why would the CB try to keep it around the same level as euro, like Denmark? the idea would be to devalue against your trading partners {wont be that hard to do!} in order to stimulate exports and lift the economy. Of course the budget deficit due to welfare+PS will still need to be closed. We also already have IMF in town, this is often their approach to countries in a mess like this, they already voiced their anger at not burning bondholders since thats what they usually do, but they are not the ones running the show on their own since EU have a finger in the pie too.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

An alternative is a trade weighted peg to a basket of currencies of our major trading partners.
About 30% dollar, 30% pound and 20% euro + few others.
This can be adjusted as trade grows/shrinks with any country.

They also need to be defended. If the punt is supposed to be a certain value in respect of the basket of currencies, you have to pay to keep it there - buy when the market is selling to keep the punt up, sell when the market is buying to keep the punt down.

It's also the case that with high capital mobility, a currency peg means you lose pretty much the same set of fiscal instruments as you do in the euro - particularly, you lose control over your interest rates.

wiseguy wrote: »

As for the Swiss, their struggle is figuring out what to do with all that money flowing in, which is not a bad thing, they are issuing bonds at zero to slightly negative rates, entities are giving them money for safekeeping and know their will loose some! thats not a bad position to be in.

Being tied to a currency where one country {Germany} has a defacto control +influence of the ECB, and this CB has no intention of focusing on job creation or actually cares as to what happens in Ireland, is insane! also considering that Germany is not our major trading partner when it comes to exports {mind you not as many BMWs around now either}

Given the way German members of the ECB kept resigning precisely because they disagreed with what the ECB was doing, the claim that Germany controls the ECB is not really supportable. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Germany, and have made several such inaccurate claims, most of which have been debunked for you, only for you to shift onto the next such claim.

Of what value is denouncing Germany?

wiseguy wrote: »

Also why would the CB try to keep it around the same level as euro, like Denmark? the idea would be to devalue against your trading partners {wont be that hard to do!} in order to stimulate exports and lift the economy. Of course the budget deficit due to welfare+PS will still need to be closed. We also already have IMF in town, this is often their approach to countries in a mess like this, they already voiced their anger at not burning bondholders since thats what they usually do, but they are not the ones running the show on their own since EU have a finger in the pie too.

Currency pegs are there to make trade with your main trade partners easier - that's why we had the sterling peg. We do more trade with the eurozone than the UK, so our currency peg would more likely be to the euro. It's also not possible to continuously devalue - you have to set a point at which you stop.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

They also need to be defended. If the punt is supposed to be a certain value in respect of the basket of currencies, you have to pay to keep it there - buy when the market is selling to keep the punt up, sell when the market is buying to keep the punt down.

Yes we will, but whether we are in the euro or leave it, the deficit will have to be closed in the next few years {or sooner} there is no way about it, it has to be done, pegging to our major trading partner currencies would give the exporters that extra boost.

Well run countries do not get attacked as per your world view of "markets being like wolves". And we have to become a well run country in the next few years, there is simply no choice. Staying in the euro would require the very same discipline as being outside of it, minus the ability to support exporters.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's also the case that with high capital mobility, a currency peg means you lose pretty much the same set of fiscal instruments as you do in the euro - particularly, you lose control over your interest rates.

Ha what "control of interest rates"?! We have none within the euro as is, nor will ever. Whats worse the central bank answerable to ECB has no job creation mandate like the FED in us does. Having own CB would mean actually being able to start addressing some of the problems in this country, that the ECB has no interest in.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given the way German members of the ECB kept resigning precisely because they disagreed with what the ECB was doing, the claim that Germany controls the ECB is not really supportable. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Germany, and have made several such inaccurate claims, most of which have been debunked for you, only for you to shift onto the next such claim.

Because they are a bunch of hypocrtites who happen to be in a different economic cycle to the rest of euro members, and are getting all smug about it. The actions of Germany (or the lack of to be more precise) is leading to more and more countries in Europe going on fire.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of what value is denouncing Germany?

Denouncing? No! Pointing out that they are hypocrites who were the first to break the pact and have the ability to do so again if they need to. Pointing out that German politicians are acting very much in the interest of the electorates only and not Europe as a whole, yet then proceed to blast Cameroon for doing the very same.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Currency pegs are there to make trade with your main trade partners easier - that's why we had the sterling peg. We do more trade with the eurozone than the UK, so our currency peg would more likely be to the euro. It's also not possible to continuously devalue - you have to set a point at which you stop.

But are our trade is not exclusively with eurozone only, its not even a majority, hence the basket of currencies idea, and whats more important this can be tweaked instead of sudden changes. Neither is there any need to "continually devalue" once the deficit is closed, closing the deficit is something that we will have to do anyways.

Our main export partners are below (Other EU includes euro and noeuro countries):

So the new currency could be pegged at this ratio {China is pegged to dollar + $ is the reserve+secondary currency for much rest of the world ...}

euro=40% : dollar=35% : uk pound=17% : CHF=3% : Yen=2% : Other=3%
This can be adjusted by CB as is required to boost trade.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

Yes we will, but whether we are in the euro or leave it, the deficit will have to be closed in the next few years {or sooner} there is no way about it, it has to be done, pegging to our major trading partner currencies would give the exporters that extra boost.

While leaving the euro will cost us - according to UBS - about a quarter of our GDP. The roundabouts are a lot bigger than the swings there.

wiseguy wrote: »

Well run countries do not get attacked as per your world view of "markets being like wolves". And we have to become a well run country in the next few years, there is simply no choice. Staying in the euro would require the very same discipline as being outside of it, minus the ability to support exporters.

I wasn't particularly stressing attacks, which might or might not happen - a pegged currency requires constant maintenance.

wiseguy wrote: »

Ha what "control of interest rates"?! We have none within the euro as is, nor will ever.

Yes - that's what I said.

wiseguy wrote: »

Whats worse the central bank answerable to ECB has no job creation mandate like the FED in us does. Having own CB would mean actually being able to start addressing some of the problems in this country, that the ECB has no interest in.

The CBI didn't have a job creation mandate before the euro - the theory of politically independent banks is now over a couple of decades old.

wiseguy wrote: »

Because they are a bunch of hypocrtites who happen to be in a different economic cycle to the rest of euro members, and are getting all smug about it.

Even assuming that's objectively accurate as opposed to your personal perception, so?

wiseguy wrote: »

The actions of Germany (or the lack of to be more precise) is leading to more and more countries in Europe going on fire.

Actually, it looks increasingly like the problem may be Franco-German differences.

wiseguy wrote: »

Denouncing? No! Pointing out that they are hypocrites who were the first to break the pact and have the ability to do so again if they need to. Pointing out that German politicians are acting very much in the interest of the electorates only and not Europe as a whole, yet then proceed to blast Cameroon for doing the very same.

No, that was Sarkozy.

wiseguy wrote: »

But are our trade is not exclusively with eurozone only, its not even a majority, hence the basket of currencies idea, and whats more important this can be tweaked instead of sudden changes. Neither is there any need to "continually devalue" once the deficit is closed, closing the deficit is something that we will have to do anyways.

Our main export partners are below (Other EU includes euro and noeuro countries):

So the new currency could be pegged at this ratio {China is pegged to dollar + $ is the reserve+secondary currency for much rest of the world ...}

euro=40% : dollar=35% : uk pound=17% : CHF=3% : Yen=2% : Other=3%
This can be adjusted by CB as is required to boost trade.

OK, great, so we'll be mildly out of step with all of our trade partners.

I'm not sure what the fixation is with a currency peg as a solution to our debt problems. I can't help but see it as a classic:

1. leave euro
2. .....
3. profit!

setup. A mild boost to the export sector, OK, that's nice. Does that sort out our debt problems? No. Does it exempt us from any problems caused by defaulting on our debt? No. How is it a solution to anything other than "using the euro" as a thing in itself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

wiseguy wrote: »

Also why would the CB try to keep it around the same level as euro, like Denmark? the idea would be to devalue against your trading partners {wont be that hard to do!} in order to stimulate exports and lift the economy.

I was responding to the suggestion that Punt Nua be pegged to the euro.

wiseguy wrote: »

Well run countries do not get attacked as per your world view of "markets being like wolves". And we have to become a well run country in the next few years, there is simply no choice. Staying in the euro would require the very same discipline as being outside of it, minus the ability to support exporters.

As far as suggestions for tackling the crisis go, that's really untenable. There is a compelling argument to be made that Ireland will never become a well run country voluntarily in the short term. The Irish people are still locked into a low-tax high-spend mindset. During the Finance Minister's budget speech he received an applause when he announced spending increases. The next day the Irish Examiner summarized the changes under two columns - good and bad. The "good" column contained only spending increases while the "bad" column contained only spending cuts. During the General Election FG's primary advertisement for the FairCare policy ran "Free GP Visits". Irish society still hasn't seemed to grasp the fact that low-tax high-spending policies aren't sustainable and that they were a major cause of the crisis.

So pinning all your hopes on the Irish people wisening up doesn't sound very good to me.

wiseguy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I was responding to the suggestion that Punt Nua be pegged to the euro.



As far as suggestions for tackling the crisis go, that's really untenable. There is a compelling argument to be made that Ireland will never become a well run country voluntarily in the short term. The Irish people are still locked into a low-tax high-spend mindset. During the Finance Minister's budget speech he received an applause when he announced spending increases. The next day the Irish Examiner summarized the changes under two columns - good and bad. The "good" column contained only spending increases while the "bad" column contained only spending cuts. During the General Election FG's primary advertisement for the FairCare policy ran "Free GP Visits". Irish society still hasn't seemed to grasp the fact that low-tax high-spending policies aren't sustainable and that they were a major cause of the crisis.

So pinning all your hopes on the Irish people wisening up doesn't sound very good to me.

You dont "get it"

Whether we stay in euro or not, there is simply no choice for the Irish people and the politics of this island to change. You have no faith in Irish people and the politicians, neither do I, but thats ok the deficit will have to be closed one way or the other whether we stay in the euro or not. Yes there will be denial, obfuscation and lying but in the end the deficit will be closed.

Scofflaws argument for the euro is along the lines of "discipline being forced on us", but history has shown that once we entered the euro discipline went out the windows of the Regulator/CB
whether we remain in the euro or not, "discipline" will have to be learned and the country will have to become "well run". I dont know how it will happen in the face of opposition from Unions etc but it will have to happen.

The markets will force "discipline" on the Irish politicians, if anything hanging onto EU money allows Irish politicians to put off hard decisions until a later date, witness Croke Park, do you think Croke Park would have existed if we had no euro and instead of Troika only the IMF came to the rescue?

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, great, so we'll be mildly out of step with all of our trade partners.

I'm not sure what the fixation is with a currency peg as a solution to our debt problems. I can't help but see it as a classic:

1. leave euro
2. .....
3. profit!

setup. A mild boost to the export sector, OK, that's nice. Does that sort out our debt problems? No. Does it exempt us from any problems caused by defaulting on our debt? No. How is it a solution to anything other than "using the euro" as a thing in itself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am getting rather sick of you implying I said one thing when I say something else altogether.
There is no easy way out, there is no "3... profit!" I never said that. Quite the opposite whether we are in euro or not the inbalances in the economy will have to be sorted out, the deficit will have to be cut. Politicians will try to kick cans down the road etc but they will fail in the end.

You have have a way of talking down to anyone you disagree with.
Thats ok, no point having a discussion with someone who writes "Amusingly" at end of posts in order to mock posters, instead of either staying out of debate or showing some respect as you are shown.

You have stereotyped me into the "eurosceptic" box, I am anything but a eurosceptic, I have voted YES to every eu referendum up to here, but its hard not to notice how the EU that we known is being destroyed and set on fire by incompetent politicians.

Sand

@Wise guy

I am getting rather sick of you implying I said one thing when I say something else altogether.
There is no easy way out, there is no "3... profit!"

You're incorrect - as a certain Scofflaw noted over on irisheconomy.ie there is a "3....profit!".

Sure, but that wasn’t anything I claimed. The resurrection, in a slightly tighter fitting form, of the S&G Pact won’t sort out the crisis - it’s just a new and improved stick to “stop it happening again”. Not, of course, that original S&G Pact did so, but perhaps it *might* have done if it had ever been applied.

The carrot, in theory, is that once the big players are happy that as much as possible is being done to stop such a crisis happening again, *then* measures will finally be taken to sort the crisis itself out.

So the logic is:

1 - Accept stupid and damaging treaty changes of no relevance to the actual problem whatsoever

2 - ?????

3 - Profit!!!

See? There is an easy way out. We just continue to accept stupid deals against our own interests, and just magically things will suddenly get better.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

I am getting rather sick of you implying I said one thing when I say something else altogether.
There is no easy way out, there is no "3... profit!" I never said that. Quite the opposite whether we are in euro or not the inbalances in the economy will have to be sorted out, the deficit will have to be cut. Politicians will try to kick cans down the road etc but they will fail in the end.

Yes, but what does all that actually mean?

wiseguy wrote: »

You have have a way of talking down to anyone you disagree with.
Thats ok, no point having a discussion with someone who writes "Amusingly" at end of posts in order to mock posters, instead of either staying out of debate or showing some respect as you are shown.

Mm...I might have to give up doing that, considering people find it so offensive. Still, I do it when I'm amused, and I admit that sometimes I'm amused because what's been put forward is daft.

wiseguy wrote: »

You have stereotyped me into the "eurosceptic" box, I am anything but a eurosceptic, I have voted YES to every eu referendum up to here, but its hard not to notice how the EU that we known is being destroyed and set on fire by incompetent politicians.

And I've agreed with you that that's the case, so I'm not sure why you're so sure I've decided you're a "eurosceptic".

I'm just struggling to understand what the value of a pegged non-euro currency is, and why on earth it's some kind of preferable alternative to a euro with the same limits as the S&G Pact we're already signed up to but with stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming you're actually putting it forward as a preferable alternative, but you certainly seem to be doing so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

@Wise guy


You're incorrect - as a certain Scofflaw noted over on irisheconomy.ie there is a "3....profit!".



So the logic is:

1 - Accept stupid and damaging treaty changes of no relevance to the actual problem whatsoever

2 - ?????

3 - Profit!!!

See? There is an easy way out. We just continue to accept stupid deals against our own interests, and just magically things will suddenly get better.

Hence "in theory".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

The problem is Scofflaw that you're arguing for your theory to be put into practise. And if all that you can offer as defence of it is that its a theory...well, its not much of a theory.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

The problem is Scofflaw that you're arguing for your theory to be put into practise. And if all that you can offer as defence of it is that its a theory...well, its not much of a theory.

I'm in favour of a constitutional debt brake quite on its own merits, though, so my agenda there is a little fuzzy. I wouldn't particularly argue that we should adopt it on the basis of the "in theory" without any notion of what the "in theory" involves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

I also favour a constitutional debt limit, but:

* It does nothing to solve existing crisis, we here in Ireland are already in a contract to reduce our debt, whether its put in constitution or not in the next few years debt/gdp % will have to be cut. Spain have it and are still in mess and Italy will soon implement it.

* It might help during the next boom>bust cycle BUT like everything else in the latest EU proposals its procyclical, during a boom the GDP rises hence its easier to rack up debt {and obligations such as pensions and welfare that are hard to cut and lead to debt!} and still stay within limits as Ireland has done up to few years ago! A better alternative would be a debt limit + % of GDP required to be saved for a rainy day into a sovereign fund such as Norway's.

* US states have a sort of debt limits but yet the likes of California are still bankrupt, debt could be shifted into SPIVs such as NAMA and hidden from government totals, we have done this here in Ireland with NAMA being an unknown unknown costing billions with some potentially huge liabilities.

* Limits could be removed via new referenda when the times are good, witness post Depression laws being repealed in US. You are one populist bribing political party away from being back to square one.


Anyways we could implement debt limits via a referenda at any time, it doesnt have to involve Europe, if anything dragging europe into it could mean the referendum could fail as everyone gets distracted from core issues. Has no lessons been learned from Lisbon?

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

I also favour a constitutional debt limit, but:

* It does nothing to solve existing crisis, we here in Ireland are already in a contract to reduce our debt, whether its put in constitution or not in the next few years debt/gdp % will have to be cut. Spain have it and are still in mess and Italy will soon implement it.

True.

wiseguy wrote: »

* It might help during the next boom>bust cycle BUT like everything else in the latest EU proposals its procyclical, during a boom the GDP rises hence its easier to rack up debt {and obligations such as pensions and welfare that are hard to cut and lead to debt!} and still stay within limits as Ireland has done up to few years ago! A better alternative would be a debt limit + % of GDP required to be saved for a rainy day into a sovereign fund such as Norway's.

I'd buy that.

wiseguy wrote: »

* US states have a sort of debt limits but yet the likes of California are still bankrupt, debt could be shifted into SPIVs such as NAMA and hidden from government totals, we have done this here in Ireland with NAMA being an unknown unknown costing billions with some potentially huge liabilities.

Also true - a debt limit without a description of what counts as debt is much less meaningful, but I can't see a section on accounting practices making it into Bunreacht.

wiseguy wrote: »

* Limits could be removed via new referenda when the times are good, witness post Depression laws being repealed in US. You are one populist bribing political party away from being back to square one.

In a sense, that is the advantage of doing it as part of a treaty.

wiseguy wrote: »

Anyways we could implement debt limits via a referenda at any time, it doesnt have to involve Europe, if anything dragging europe into it could mean the referendum could fail as everyone gets distracted from core issues. Has no lessons been learned from Lisbon?

Heh. Also true, and I suspect that for that reason we may have a referendum on the debt limit, because that would allow Oireachtas ratification of the treaty.

Coming back to your earlier point, I think people often assume that I'm uncritically in favour of everything "European". That's as far from accurate as describing you as a eurosceptic.

cordially,
Scofflaw