Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

Vadakin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There are number of compelling reasons why one should not trust Irish democracy. The principal one is that the Irish people, through the ballot box, were instrumental in the creation of the current crisis here. They consistently voted for high-spend low-tax policies that have now resulted in a disastrous governmental fiscal position. And many are in denial that they are to blame: Enda Kenny himself played up to this when he said people were not at fault in his state of the nation address.

What was the alternative? Fine Gael? They were advocating pretty much the same policies as Fianna Fail, often complaining that the government didn't go far enough every time the budget came around. Ultimately though it wasn't that policy that did us in. It contributed but it wasn't the driving factor.

Irishheart

I personally will be Voting no never no chance.
I think its time to clean house and take it on chin and scrape back.But this time owing no one nothing.Building this country off the back bone of good business and trade and tourism and entertainment.
I am sick of the typical,If you vote no could!!!!! word could be trouble for Ireland.
They said would be jobs for Ireland they were wrong on that note aswell.
Time to use your brains and stop listening to the people who are obviously watching their own back pockets.
For the good of Ireland and my future and the peoples future i believe the vote no will be the best option.
But i worry they will scare people into voting for it with the jobs thing again and the no more funds.People forget the fear and get Ireland back on its feet the right way owing nothing.

Vadakin

ninja900 wrote: »

You're not comparing like with like. The 3% deficit target is a yearly target disregarding the economic cycle. The 0.5% target (if I understand correctly) is what's left over after cyclical deficits/surpluses are taken into account, i.e. the average deficit over an entire economic cycle.

It's very difficult to argue IMHO that a country in the position we are in should not be aiming to at least balance the books in future over the economic cycle, in other words zero structural deficit.

It's convenient for some commentators on the No side to ignore that the 3% target and the 0.5% target are not measuring the same thing.

Sometimes I wonder if we'd have been better off with a clean cut at the beginning. No 5 year plan, just reduce the deficit by the required amount in one go. It would have been hell, people would have suffered greatly, but at least it would be done. What we have right now, with the incremental reducing of the public services bill, feels like a death by a thousand cuts.

Heck, what if we could treat the bank debt like war debt? Pay it off over 60 years like the Germans did?

FreudianSlippers

Irishheart wrote: »

I personally will be Voting no never no chance.
I think its time to clean house and take it on chin and scrape back.But this time owing no one nothing.Building this country off the back bone of good business and trade and tourism and entertainment.
I am sick of the typical,If you vote no could!!!!! word could be trouble for Ireland.
They said would be jobs for Ireland they were wrong on that note aswell.
Time to use your brains and stop listening to the people who are obviously watching their own back pockets.
For the good of Ireland and my future and the peoples future i believe the vote no will be the best option.
But i worry they will scare people into voting for it with the jobs thing again and the no more funds.People forget the fear and get Ireland back on its feet the right way owing nothing.

:facepalm: Do we really have to keep doing this over and over again? Do you actually have a good and logical reason for voting no... I mean, do you even know what the referendum is about?

Irishheart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

:facepalm: Do we really have to keep doing this over and over again? Do you actually have a good and logical reason for voting no... I mean, do you even know what the referendum is about?

It is a basic control on spending.A slap on wrist and Irish government doing as told by their masters
I dont know do you know?
facepalm me the cheek :P

FreudianSlippers

Irishheart wrote: »

It is a basic control on spending.A slap on wrist and Irish government doing as told by their masters
I dont know do you know?
facepalm me the cheek :P

I suggest you at the bare minimum skim the previous posts.

Irishheart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I suggest you at the bare minimum skim the previous posts.

Are you talking about the no more funds rubbish?
Because really i dont care if no more funds come in from them.
You may want to be stuck and keep getting in debt to them for rest of your life i do not.

Give me one sentence in your own words why you will vote yes.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

That's speculation. It wasn't the reading I took from the poster when I saw it. I don't imagine any serious proportion of the Irish electorate (nor the socialist party) believe that rejection of the treaty implies an end to austerity, quite honestly.

Perhaps it is speculation but given the different announcements from Sinn Fein and the ULA I think it's a fairly safe bet. They are all linking it with the need for austerity.

FreudianSlippers

Irishheart wrote: »

Are you talking about the no more funds rubbish?
Because really i dont care if no more funds come in from them.
You may want to be stuck and keep getting in debt to them for rest of your life i do not.

Give me one sentence in your own words why you will vote yes.

I don't know the exact wording of the referendum yet, so I cannot say whether I will vote yes on it.

Why do I support the Fiscal Compact? Countries in the EZ have been, for far too long, able to endanger other members by their fiscal ineptitude and debt laden budgets.
Signing the EFC will force countries in the EZ to run balanced budgets with very little structural deficit (and therefore public sector deficit) as a percentage of GDP; it sets a government debt maximum and a structure to repay that; it makes it so that if a member state is starting to get out of control, the other members can step in and stop it before crisis starts; it promotes structural reform to stem the bad banking practices and fix the underlying problems of the debt crisis and banking crisis in Europe; it gives the ECJ more power to prevent countries from breaking the rules and; it puts both the ESM and the balanced budget issues into the constitutions of each member state.

Now let's not forget that that last reason is the only reason we're having a referendum on this.

I don't know what else I've left out, but can you tell me why any of the things that the Fiscal Compact that we're voting on whether or not to ratify is going to damage the country further?

Irishheart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't know the exact wording of the referendum yet, so I cannot say whether I will vote yes on it.

Why do I support the Fiscal Compact? Countries in the EZ have been, for far too long, able to endanger other members by their fiscal ineptitude and debt laden budgets.
Signing the EFC will force countries in the EZ to run balanced budgets with very little structural deficit (and therefore public sector deficit) as a percentage of GDP; it sets a government debt maximum and a structure to repay that; it makes it so that if a member state is starting to get out of control, the other members can step in and stop it before crisis starts; it promotes structural reform to stem the bad banking practices and fix the underlying problems of the debt crisis and banking crisis in Europe; it gives the ECJ more power to prevent countries from breaking the rules and; it puts both the ESM and the balanced budget issues into the constitutions of each member state.

Now let's not forget that that last reason is the only reason we're having a referendum on this.

I don't know what else I've left out, but can you tell me why any of the things that the Fiscal Compact that we're voting on whether or not to ratify is going to damage the country further?

I can tell you now not going to fix it,so why vote yes?
I read something in it that made me worry also.That other countries can bring Ireland to courts for non payments.Also will give them control over our country and budgets and prices and many many more things.
Already Ireland is suffering under their so called help and advise.
I have yet to see a plausible reason why yes is right option.

FreudianSlippers

No, you could actually bring Ireland to court and have them fined for exceeding their debt to GDP limit. The EU and ECJ get no control over our country and budgets - we are all merely agreeing on setting a debt limit.

Passing the compact will do more to "fix" things than voting no will.

Eliot Rosewater

Vadakin wrote: »

What was the alternative? Fine Gael? They were advocating pretty much the same policies as Fianna Fail, often complaining that the government didn't go far enough every time the budget came around. Ultimately though it wasn't that policy that did us in. It contributed but it wasn't the driving factor.

I know that, but that only confirms my point. FG proposed those policies because if they didn't promote the high-spend low-tax model they would have been decimated at the polls by the Irish people who wanted that model.

FreudianSlippers

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I know that, but that only confirms my point. FG proposed those policies because if they didn't promote the high-spend low-tax model they would have been decimated at the polls by the Irish people who wanted that model.

I don't necessarily disagree with that view once the money is spent on the right things (infrastructure etc.) and not public sector wages as both FF and FG have done.

Irishheart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, you could actually bring Ireland to court and have them fined for exceeding their debt to GDP limit. The EU and ECJ get no control over our country and budgets - we are all merely agreeing on setting a debt limit.

Passing the compact will do more to "fix" things than voting no will.

Thats what i said just arse ways.:p
They said it already,they will have control over what the government spend.That will bring also control over your tax on your wages and the prices of food and rent.It is on increase again havent you noticed? Then power goes up and heat goes up.
What you should be worrying about is why our government is allowing this to happen and need to be controlled in the limit,and also that they feel they arent capable to do it without EU controlling them like puppets.
Anyway up to you what you vote.Need to see the bigger picture here and not the worry about getting more funds but the worry of where its leading for future.
P.S Still no proper reason nor guarantee's all just guess work and if and if but not for sure why should be yes vote.

oscarBravo

Vadakin wrote: »

...I was angered that they would put the same exact treaty to us again, essentially disregarding the decision of the people because apparently it was the wrong one.

[...]

There is a disease in Europe, in the world.

[...]

Europe had a field day, moving quickly to make sure the "right" man was in charge.

[...]

Berlin... want Europe to do things their way... Sarkozy and Merkel aren't the King and Queen of Europe...

[...]

Stop the rhetoric.

Indeed.

FreudianSlippers

Irishheart wrote: »

Thats what i said just arse ways.:p
They said it already,they will have control over what the government spend.That will bring also control over your tax on your wages and the prices of food and rent.It is on increase again havent you noticed? Then power goes up and heat goes up.

Simply. No it wont. They set an amount of debt to GDP we can have and we work within that framework ourselves (as do ALL other EZ countries).

They will not have control over how much the government spends. All the ECJ can do is fine governments for non-compliance.

What you should be worrying about is why our government is allowing this to happen and need to be controlled in the limit,and also that they feel they arent capable to do it without EU controlling them like puppets.
Anyway up to you what you vote.Need to see the bigger picture here and not the worry about getting more funds but the worry of where its leading for future.

More nonsense here. It has nothing to do with more money - it's about our future in the Eurozone. Not ratifying this treaty will do far more damage and cause far more austerity than doing so.

Irishheart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Simply. No it wont. They set an amount of debt to GDP we can have and we work within that framework ourselves (as do ALL other EZ countries).

They will not have control over how much the government spends. All the ECJ can do is fine governments for non-compliance.


More nonsense here. It has nothing to do with more money - it's about our future in the Eurozone. Not ratifying this treaty will do far more damage and cause far more austerity than doing so.

Again you are just saying what they said,One side says more with it other side says more without it.

Non compliance of what? What they tell them to do isnt that same thing as control?

Vadakin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Indeed.

I also said back up what you say. Are Sarkozy and particularly Merkel calling the shots? Yes. Was the Lisbon Treaty put to us twice without a single change? Yes. Did European leaders go mad when the Greek PM suggested a referendum and was he ultimately replaced by an unelected official? Yes. It was the same in Italy.

I'm not anti-Europe. I'm very much pro-Europe...as long as it's democratic. I may very well end up voting in favour of the treaty if I feel it's a good thing for Ireland and Europe. We can only get out of this crisis together. But it has to be as equals.

later12

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The EU and ECJ get no control over our country and budgets

Have you read Articles 9-11 of the TSCG?
Have you also noted the Euro Plus Pact?
While I would suggest these provisions may not go far enough, or may not be democratic enough, your above position is quite a remarkable one.

Scofflaw

Kinski wrote: »

That seems superficially plausible, until one stops to think about it. If you give the money directly to your banks, they owe you, and you own them. Whatever form of holding them upside down and shaking your money out of them is necessary is within your power.

But how does that get around the problem of the massive financial hole those banks would be in? I assume you don't really want to be turning your banks upside down and shaking money out of them.

You'd be putting your money into them either way - whether routed through Irish banks or put in directly - to fill that massive financial hole. Doing it directly gives you ownership of your banks, which means you can sell them afterwards to recoup some of what you put in. Doing indirectly via the Irish banks costs you more and you don't get ownership of the banks you're bailing out, because formally speaking they're being paid back by their creditors.

So:

1. in a direct scenario, you put €20bn into "Bundesbank", you buy €20bn of that bank, which you may be able to sell after the crisis for €10bn. Net cost €10bn.

2. indirectly, you put €20bn into the Irish banks, they pay off €10bn they owe to Bundesbank (and €10bn to Francobank), you get no ownership of Bundesbank, and still have to put another €10bn into them. Net cost €30bn.

Doesn't make a bit of sense really. Interestingly, it works out differently for the Irish government. In scenario 1, the Irish government gets nothing out of the process, whereas in scenario 2, it gains ownership of the Irish banks using German money, and it can sell them after the crisis for a few billion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Irishheart

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

More nonsense here. It has nothing to do with more money - it's about our future in the Eurozone. Not ratifying this treaty will do far more damage and cause far more austerity than doing so.

P.S if its nonsense why are they harping on about it and saying it is about the money and no more funds.If we get booted from eurozone whats the problem and why are we going to have issues.UK are staying out of this fiscal so are Czechs. So what is so different about Ireland saying no to fiscal and controlling our own ****.Or is because Irish government dont think they can themselves and EU dont either.But UK is not under same threat? Makes sense i dont think so.
So many holes.Not enough good reason barr what ifs and could be and might effect.Its all scare tactics on Irish people who are less economically and politically wise and listen to fear.Not really voting for what they want just voting how they are told,because no one is giving it in layman's terms or giving you the whole story as you do understand most.And guess why that is because they dont want people to vote for what they really want but for what they only want them to think they know.;)

FreudianSlippers

later12 wrote: »

Have you read Articles 9-11 of the TSCG?

Yes. I see nothing to counter what I've said there.

Have you also noted the Euro Plus Pact?

Yes, but it is completely irrelevant to the referendum we're discussing.
Also, it's irrelevant to almost everything unless you're referring to the tax base issue.

While I would suggest these provisions may not go far enough, or may not be democratic enough, your above position is quite a remarkable one.

Do tell...

FreudianSlippers

Irishheart wrote: »

P.S if its nonsense why are they harping on about it and saying it is about the money and no more funds.

Who are they exactly?

If we get booted from eurozone whats the problem and why are we going to have issues.

This has been gone over about a billion times in this forum. I'll say this, there is no provision for a country to leave the EZ without also leaving the EU. I don't think we could afford to print out own currency and I don't think leaving the EU/EZ is in our best interest at all. Why would we want to be on the edge of Europe; influenced by its decisions with no say.

If you could explain why we shouldn't be in the EZ and therefore the EU then great... otherwise, it's pub chat.

UK are staying out of this fiscal so are Czechs.

Realistically I'm not too bothered about non-eurozone countries not signing.
I see their reluctance to participate in this and I actually think its wholly unnecessary.

So what is so different about Ireland saying no to fiscal and controlling our own ****.Or is because Irish government dont think they can themselves and EU dont either.

We need money, if we don't get it from the EU we'll have to get it from the IMF - they're going to "control our ****" too.

But UK is not under same threat?

Not really. They're not members of the Eurozone.

Not enough good reason barr what ifs and could be and might effect.

All we have is educated guesses. If someone had the magic solution, they'd have implemented it by now. On the balance I see the negatives to a no vote as more severe than the negatives to a yes vote... and vice versa, I see no positive change in our situation to voting no. What will it accomplish? We are not leaving the Eurozone, so there will be another solution. Remember, if it doesn't require constitutional amendment there doesn't need to be a referendum.

Its all scare tactics on Irish people who are less economically and politically wise and listen to fear.

I would agree that the polar "yes" and "no" campaigns by our electoral parties are fear campaigns, but I think rational thought will lead to a majority 'yes' vote where one does not have political or social ulterior objectives.

Not really voting for what they want just voting how they are told,because no one is giving it in layman's terms or giving you the whole story as you do understand most.And guess why that is because they dont want people to vote for what they really want but for what they only want them to think they know.;)

Well, we don't have wording for a referendum yet. I suggest you at least read the wikipedia and hopefully follow the link to the treaty. You will see it isn't complicated, it doesn't talk about bailouts or governmental control.

K-9

Irishheart wrote: »

If we get booted from eurozone whats the problem and why are we going to have issues.UK are staying out of this fiscal so are Czechs. So what is so different about Ireland saying no to fiscal and controlling our own ****.Or is because Irish government dont think they can themselves and EU dont either.But UK is not under same threat? Makes sense i dont think so.

The difference is Sterling is a world recognised strong currency, yeah the UK economy has its weaknesses, so has Japan but its still a big player internationally, the Czechs never joined the Euro, we'd be the first to exit a world currency to start printing a small currency that has no effect internationally.

oscarBravo

Vadakin wrote: »

Are Sarkozy and particularly Merkel calling the shots? Yes.

Not unless the EU treaties have been re-written while I wasn't looking.

Was the Lisbon Treaty put to us twice without a single change? Yes.

The wording of the constitutional amendment was changed, and some protocols were agreed for appending to the next treaty.

What puzzles me is why it would anger you. You imply (without saying outright) that you voted in favour at the first asking, which implies that you agreed with the proposed treaty. I don't get what's so deeply offensive about being asked the same question twice.

Also, "disregarding the will of the people" is archetypal rhetoric. The will of the people was that the constitution not be amended after the first referendum. The constitution wasn't amended after the first referendum. The will of the people was that the constitution be amended after the second referendum. The constitution was amended after the second referendum.

At what point was the will of the people disregarded?

Did European leaders go mad when the Greek PM suggested a referendum and was he ultimately replaced by an unelected official? Yes.

"Going mad" falls firmly into rhetoric territory for me, but leaving that aside: the Greek prime minister was appointed by the Greek parliament in accordance with Greece's constitutional requirements.

It was the same in Italy.

Italy's prime minister was appointed by the Italian parliament in accordance with Italy's constitutional requirements.

If you take the appointment of those two prime ministers in accordance with their respective countries' constitutional arrangements and dress it up as leaders being installed by Europe, then you're guilty of the sort of rhetoric you've asked others to refrain from.

later12

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The EU and ECJ get no control over our country and budgets - we are all merely agreeing on setting a debt limit.

Lets just use one pretty straightforward example.

Article 7

...the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission where it considers that a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro is in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit procedure.

This obligation shall not apply where it is established among the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro that a qualified majority of them, calculated by analogy with the relevant provisions of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, without taking into account the position of the Contracting Party concerned, is opposed to the decision proposed or recommended.

FreudianSlippers

later12 wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The EU and ECJ get no control over our country and budgets - we are all merely agreeing on setting a debt limit.

Lets just use one pretty straightforward example.

Article 7

...the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission where it considers that a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro is in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit procedure.

This obligation shall not apply where it is established among the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro that a qualified majority of them, calculated by analogy with the relevant provisions of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, without taking into account the position of the Contracting Party concerned, is opposed to the decision proposed or recommended.

What's your point? Where a country is in breach of the deficit criterion the country commits to supporting the recommendations. This is a far cry from saying we would a) be one of those countries b) if we were (and we do not want to be ever again anyway) it doesn't mean they dictate our budget, they make recommendations on how we proceed which we have committed to support.

Even then, if the majority of countries disagree with that recommendation we are not even bound to consider it.

It would be different if they were saying we shall implement their recommendations or proposals.

IMO you are making a mountain out of a mile hill. In any event, we want to never have this kind of deficit again, so once we don't then we are in the clear.

later12

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

they make recommendations on how we proceed which we have committed to support.

Committing, in a Treaty, ratified by plebiscite, to support EU proposals... I imagine that would appear to most people to ceding some control to the EU in the event of breaching the debt ceiling.

That's fair enough, but it does amount to our ex-ante agreement to implement EU proposals.

I have no particular interest in debating whether this is right or wrong here, but I'm simply pointing out that your suggestion "The EU... get no control over our country and budgets" is patently incorrect. The Treaty sets out in some detail a set of provisions whereby the EU does get to make policy "proposals, which we commit to supporting, apparently unconditionally.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Committing, in a Treaty, ratified by plebiscite, to support EU proposals... I imagine that would appear to most people to ceding some control to the EU in the event of breaching the debt ceiling.

That's fair enough, but it does amount to our ex-ante agreement to implement EU proposals.

I have no particular interest in debating whether this is right or wrong here, but I'm simply pointing out that your suggestion "The EU... get no control over our country and budgets" is patently incorrect. The Treaty sets out in some detail a set of provisions whereby the EU does get to make policy "proposals, which we commit to supporting, apparently unconditionally.

Not unconditionally, but on the condition that the majority of the Member States don't oppose those proposals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not unconditionally, but on the condition that the majority of the Member States don't oppose those proposals.

Indeed. I meant unconditionally once the EU member states (excluding Ireland, in this example) deliberate and agree on the EU commission's proposed course of action.

That is the sense in which I refer to a ceding of control to the EU. I'm not happy with the role played by the Commission, but I'm not necessarily opposed to this specific provision either. I think an alternative would be open to abuse by larger states. I'm just pointing it out. I think people have the right to expect an honest description of the Treaty on both sides.