Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

washman3

If you believe "we all partied", people went mad borrowing", "cribbers should commit suicide", "nobody was forced to pay 4 times the value of a house", "wear the green jersey", "we've turned the corner", "we're making steady progress", "Frankfurts way or Labours way", "jobless recovery", "we are where we are", "yes for jobs", then a yes vote is your best option.
Or, if you have no problem with a retired civil servent getting €1000 a week coupled with the old age pension(both of which are payed by the taxpayer),
or if you believe that developers and speculators who brought about this mess can walk away scot-free from their debts,while in the meantime be paid €100,000 to €200,000 to "manage" their own mess, then a yes vote is a must.!!

Or, if you believe that your local Garda Station,National School,SNA,hospital A&E, cuts of €9 a week to your elderly neighbour's blind pension,school bus routes,and a host of sneaky stealth taxes are sacrificed to pay for the above, then a now vote must be considered.

The choice is yours.......!!!!!!

[Jackass]

It's funny to see the extent to which Euro scepticism has developed in Ireland....after all they did for us, huh??

What exactly are you objecting to? This treaty is basically setting up a "rainy day fund" in Europe so that we can't crash to the extent we did this time and not be crippled by bailouts as funding will be held back, and it also promotes sensible (if not entirely achievable) fiscal policies so that Governments can't bankrupt themselves (by not being able to borrow above 60% of GDP iirc) amongst other prudent measures...

The only "fall out" we've really had with Europe has been the attempt to bully us on corporation tax, but you must bare in mind when looking at it from their perspective that this was coming after a quarter of a century of paying for a massive amount of our infrastructure etc., even during time of boom, and right after they gave us close to 100 billion so we could pay our welfare and public sector wages....they did back off as it's an integral part of our investment and economic strategy, but you can't blame them for trying....

And our current auserity mess has little to do with Europe, they just set out guidelines for us as they are essentially bankrolling us, but one way or another, Europe or no Europe, we'd be in the exact same black hole right now (worse without their support) and be doing the exact same thing (if not worse by being bankrupt)...

I will be informed and sensible and not going by the flavour of the month set out by Joe Duffy, and will be voting yes...

Scofflaw

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So does this treaty bring in a financial tax or leave the door open for one?

Neither (sorry) in itself...what it does is create a tighter integration amongst signatories, who would by virtue of their tighter integration have more influence over the internal market, particularly if allowed to use the EU institutions...and some members of that tighter group would like a financial transaction tax.

The UK does not want such a tax, and does not (or the Tories don't) want tighter integration, so therefore a first step was to prevent the others, who probably would agree to closer integration, from being able to use the EU institutions, because doing so opens the door for that more tightly integrated group to implement an EU tax.

A little confusing, I'll grant you. It was something of a gamble on Cameron's part, in fact. However, it works like this (ish):

1. the UK government want the eurozone to sort itself out, and they do regard a fiscal treaty as part of that process

2. however, any such treaty was only going to apply to the eurozone, which the UK isn't part of

3. if all the Member States signed the Treaty, then it would be an EU Treaty, which would allow the use of the EU institutions as part of the new fiscal arrangements

4. but because the treaty only affects the eurozone, the UK would not be using the EU institutions in that way

5. that raised the possibility that those countries (call them "the fiscal group") that had signed up to the treaty would acquire greater influence over the EU institutions than those that didn't

6. that, in turn, raises the possibility that the fiscal group would use that greater influence to push their preferred agendas inside the EU

7. ergo, deny them the use of the EU institutions by refusing to sign the treaty.

An analogy might go like this: take a tennis club. Some of the members would also like to use the premises of the club to hold political meetings. The non-political/tennis-only members fear that if the political members are allowed to use the tennis club premises for their meetings, the tennis club will eventually be reshaped to their preferences. However, they don't mind the political members being political. The best move is to deny use of the premises to the political members from the start.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I absolutely hate this attitude. Vote on the treaty at hand and whether you think it will be a good idea or beneficial to the country. Don't just vote no because you want to stick your middle finger up at the EU.

And rightly so.


Where are all those jobs that were promised to us from the last referendum. :rolleyes:

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the AG's advice to the government is always confidential. That seems outrageous (it's a public service, they're our government etc) until you consider that she is, in effect, the government's lawyer.

Thanks for that - first time I've understood why the advice is never disclosed.

I guess it also means there's never any way of proving if the government is lying about the advice but you have to take them at their word given the trouble if they were ever found out!

cavedave

AlmightyCushion

I absolutely hate this attitude. Vote on the treaty at hand and whether you think it will be a good idea or beneficial to the country. Don't just vote no because you want to stick your middle finger up at the EU.

Many possibly even most people are annoyed they did not get a chance to decide on the bailout and the bank guarantee. As they didnt' get a choice on those they might make that choice now even though it is not on the menu. A fair number feel the promises around last EU referendum were not entirely kosher. Add in some extra who thought voting for labour meant our way not Frankfurt's way. It adds up to a lot of annoyed people.

You hate their attitude but they still get to vote whether you approve of their attitude or not. As the Michale Lewis piece said “The problem with the Irish is that you can push them and push them and push them and they don’t do anything, then they snap and go whacko.”

Voting No might be wacko, and people might be stupid to do it. But telling them their stupid won't get many yes votes. To force a metaphor, the bank guarantee is a gangrenous leg infection crawling up into the body politic. This vote might be about a splinting a different limb. But the Irish people will use the trip to the doctors to try get the leg sorted as well.

AlmightyCushion

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither (sorry) in itself...what it does is create a tighter integration amongst signatories, who would by virtue of their tighter integration have more influence over the internal market, particularly if allowed to use the EU institutions...and some members of that tighter group would like a financial transaction tax.

The UK does not want such a tax, and does not (or the Tories don't) want tighter integration, so therefore a first step was to prevent the others, who probably would agree to closer integration, from being able to use the EU institutions.

A little confusing, I'll grant you. It was something of a gamble on Cameron's part, in fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I thought as much, cheers for clearing it up.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And rightly so.


Where are all those jobs that were promised to us from the last referendum. :rolleyes:

Both sides made up awful shíte. Where are all the abortions and why have my wages not been reduced to €1 an hour. I just ignore the waffle and fearmongering and look for the facts when I make my choice.

Good loser

I am a definite yes voter - as I have been to all the EU treaties.

McLaughlin of SF says it will result in injustice, punishment, austerity and hardship on the Irish people - all additional excellent reasons for voting yes.

zig

Im a yes voter, but Im a made a promise to myself today that Im not going to get into a debate with anyone over it, too stressful lol:D

zig

chieftan65 wrote: »

Absolutely. They didn't want to hold a referendum on this cause they know well enough it will be defeated and enda wont be getting his tap on the head for being a good little european. The arrogance of the man today was astounding when he said he was positive the irish people would ratify this treaty in a referendum. I thought i was listening to cowen again

Id say hes right tbh.

zig

I just broke my promise.Damnit

Scofflaw

carveone wrote: »

Thanks for that - first time I've understood why the advice is never disclosed.

I guess it also means there's never any way of proving if the government is lying about the advice but you have to take them at their word given the trouble if they were ever found out!

That's basically it - the AG's advice needs to stand up in court if there's a challenge. If it's bad advice, it won't stand up, the government will lose the case, and will probably, like any losing client, get themselves a new AG.

The claims people were making that the AG would advise the government not to hold a referendum because "that's what the government wants" were based on a fairly complete misconception of both law and government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bullseye1

This referendum will be about everything but balanced budgets. No doubt thr unions will be out in force to seek a no vote. It's their last chance to protect the waste in the public sector.

View

hmmm wrote: »

You can't have a sensible debate about something as complex as this treaty, particularly for an electorate as clueless about finance as the Irish electorate. Unfortunately this will be reduced to yet another meaningless debate with both sides trying to terrify people, and the electorate will again be looking for some sort of media figure to latch onto as the sage of all wisdom.

It's a nightmare, and worse this time the rest have put themselves into a position where they can ignore an Irish "no" vote and leave us to our own fate.

The "nightmare" scenario might suit the government though since they can turn around to the electorate and say:

"Well, we were going to borrow some money from the ESM to fund your local hospital, schools etc but since you voted No to that idea and the international bond markets won't touch us as a result - given the large deficit - we are just going to have to bring in much, much larger rounds of spending cuts - and, no this isn't the politicans' fault this time because we advised you correctly and you wouldn't listen to us".

And there would be little point in the electorate whinging, since if you start closing off your options, you'd better be prepared to live with the resulting reduced choices even if they turn out to be more unpleasant than the options you closed off.

View

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This referendum will be about everything but balanced budgets. No doubt thr unions will be out in force to seek a no vote. It's their last chance to protect the waste in the public sector.

Vote No to septic tank charges!

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Vote No to septic tank charges!

On the basis of your previous post, that's vote No for bigger septic tank charges. Budgets don't balance themselves, after all, and the government will need a lot more tax either to fund debt rollovers without borrowing as well as close the deficit - or to impress the heck out of the bond markets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nacho libre

Valmont wrote: »

I wonder have they set a date for the "wrong answer, try again" referendum?

It won't be necessary. It will be pointed out at various times during the coming months, how if we choose to be left behind(opt out of this treaty by voting no, while the other member plough on without us ) our recovery will grind to a halt. That more than likely will be enough to ensure we vote yes first time around on this occasion. The fact Eamon Gilmore has stated there won't be a rerun must mean he's confident a yes vote will be passed first time around- especially in light of what he said at the time of the last no vote

Fear of the adverse consequences of a no vote, will trump any hostility toward being dictated to by "Merkozy"

We'll also likely get a deal on the promissory anglo notes to ease our debt burden closer to referendum time, this will further encourage us to vote yes to a fiscal union

meglome

View wrote: »

The "nightmare" scenario might suit the government though since they can turn around to the electorate and say:

And there would be little point in the electorate whinging, since if you start closing off your options, you'd better be prepared to live with the resulting reduced choices even if they turn out to be more unpleasant than the options you closed off.

It's an interesting one isn't it. The lefty loons online are salivating as they seem to think a no vote will magically sort out all our financial problems. A no vote certainly won't do what they think but it really might force the government to take more forceful action. Interesting times.

jased10s

bum vote , only needs is an 11 + majority to pass. You think Enda's giving you a chance now ?

took 2 times to get a yes when we dident want it last time, This time ( no ) it dont matter as it's a doped horse.

either way we will pay.

Maybe zee Germans will teach paddy not to spend more then he takes home ?

Amazotheamazing

View wrote: »

The "nightmare" scenario might suit the government though since they can turn around to the electorate and say:



And there would be little point in the electorate whinging, since if you start closing off your options, you'd better be prepared to live with the resulting reduced choices even if they turn out to be more unpleasant than the options you closed off.

The electorate would just turn to whoever promised them a better deal in the next election.

The Government needs to find a way to carry this referendum and to get re-elected in four years time, hell of a job.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Davy Stockbrokers' conclusion:



http://www.davy.ie/content/pubarticles/fiscalcompact20120227.pdf

So, basically, non-ratification doesn't prevent the others going ahead, prevents Irish access to ESM funding, and may prevent our successful return to the bond markets.

Those two latter points, taken together, mean that Ireland would be rightly buggered by non-ratification. We'd be unable to access either market or European funding.

cordially,
Scofflaw

• The fiscal compact would have had no bearing on the collapse in Ireland's public finances had it been adopted at the inception of the euro. Ireland adhered to the Stability and Growth Pact rules prior to the collapse of the construction sector.

Indeed!

Tbh from watching Vincent Browne tonight there doesn't seem to be many reasons to vote No based on the actual Treaty. The SWP rep just kept repeating austerity basically and when Gilmore and Martin brought up the €15 Billion a year/€350 Million a week borrowing, SF and the SWP just say its scare mongering. As Browne pointed it, there is nothing there stopping Socialists increasing taxes, so if they wanted a 100% Wealth tax, nothing stopping them.

Apparently scrapping the bail outs magics away all our problems over night and suggesting otherwise is fear mongering. I don't envy the Yes side in this, there's nothing sexy to sell at all, whereas the no side can just shout "bail outs, sovereignty, scare mongering etc." in a "look, squirrel" type way.

meglome

jased10s wrote: »

bum vote , only needs is an 11 + majority to pass. You think Enda's giving you a chance now ?

took 2 times to get a yes when we dident want it last time, This time ( no ) it dont matter as it's a doped horse.

either way we will pay.

Maybe zee Germans will teach paddy not to spend more then he takes home ?

Sorry how exactly can you say we didn't want the last yes vote when a two to one majority voted yes?

And maybe the Germans really should teach 'Paddy' to not spend more than he takes home.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed!

Tbh from watching Vincent Browne tonight there doesn't seem to be many reasons to vote No based on the actual Treaty. The SWP rep just kept repeating austerity basically and when Gilmore and Martin brought up the €15 Billion a year/€350 Million a week borrowing, SF and the SWP just say its scare mongering. As Browne pointed it, there is nothing there stopping Socialists increasing taxes, so if they wanted a 100% Wealth tax, nothing stopping them.

Apparently scrapping the bail outs magics away all our problems over night and suggesting otherwise is fear mongering. I don't envy the Yes side in this, there's nothing sexy to sell at all, whereas the no side can just shout "bail outs, sovereignty, scare mongering etc." in a "look, squirrel" type way.

There wasn't a lot of sexy in Lisbon either, but sure - there seems to be an idea that we can just shout No! and all our problems will disappear. I don't know how attractive a platform that will turn out to be - the flip-side of that argument is likely to get more airing, whereby the treaty is somehow a recipe for 700 years of austerity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The only thing we can be sure of is that Aengus Ó Snodaigh's printers are working overtime tonight!

jank

When will there be a date set for the actual referendum?

_GOD_

Can anyone tell what a structural deficit actually is? Listen to vinny b last night Im none the wiser

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh from watching Vincent Browne tonight there doesn't seem to be many reasons to vote No based on the actual Treaty. The SWP rep just kept repeating austerity....

Strange, i got the exact opposite from watching Vincent Browne. I don't believe that Europe would have the balls to cut us off from our last source of funding after we've been such good boys and started to pay our bills, regardless of what they say, especially after how they bent over backwards to look after Greece after it's continued shambolic mismanagement of it's finances, just to keep the € together. In my mind, that takes away a lot of the fear of the big stick of banishment from access to the stability fund, which is their main threat if we vote no. It would be as much against their interest as against ours if that happened, as the next best course of action for us then would be to leave the common currency and start to print our own money, which would be a political and financial disaster for them and for the €.

Secondly, the issue of the forced austerity, and the timeline for it being undefined in the treaty is crucial. We would lose further control of our own finances and infrastructural investment & job creation spending. Regardless of the SWP's moral stance against any further austerity, which in my opinion is neither here nor there, further austerity of the kind that would be required to get us down to a 0.5% deficit from where we are currently could completely cripple the domestic economy here and entirely stunt the growth that we are hoping against hope to achieve. There doesn't seem to be anything to say that that austerity couldn't be forced on us literally overnight, with a crude "slash and burn"attitude to the public sector and a disregard for any consequences to our domestic economy. It is a measure which would seem to have been put in place by Germany for German and European interests, to keep european defecits down and cut the cost of bailouts without any real appreciation of what daily life on the ground in Ireland is like, or any kind of acceptance that it takes two types of people to create a debt crisis-those who borrow too much, but also those who lend too much.

Without a proper definition of any scale, timeline or restrictions on what further austerity measures would look like, this agreement, should we sign up to it, could actually necessitate a second bailout for ireland through completely stunted economic growth, which would play us further into the hands of Germany and the people who control the stability fund.

Thirdly, the issue of the treaty being designed in such a way as it will go ahead with or without our agreement is totally against the rule and ethos of the european project, and in effect will create a 2-tier europe of those who ratify it and those who don't, with access to different levels of sovreign rights, powers, and levels of financial assistance. This is not what we signed up to when we joined the union, and our constitution protects us from the goalposts being moved in such a fashion without our say so, which is why i suspect the Attorney general was of the opinion that a referendum was called for. I also suspect the FG/Lab government might be playing a long game here, knowing that this treaty in it's current form is not likely to pass an Irish vote, and angling for Europe to sweeten the pot by defining dates and time frames for any forced austerity, and even (heaven forbid) actually ASKING for a write-down of the bank debts we've been crippled by which are as much Europe's doing as they are ours. I think we'll see some movement on EU positions towards Ireland either during the campaign, or should a no vote arise, afterwards in the run up to any second referendum which might happen.

I'm still undecided on how I'll vote, but logical reasons like these aside, i also have moral reservations about what I've heard from Europe so far to justify a yes vote. To my mind, the kind of friend that forces us to go ahead with something that's clearly more in their immediate interest than it is ours and who holds a vague threat of leaving us out in the dark over us in order to get their way isn't the kind of friend that i want to have.

Back in school, the name we had for that kind of friend was a bully, and bullies don't respect people who roll over and do as they're told, they only respect strength and courage, and the will to be stubborn and fight against a forced agenda. Based on the current mood, i think Ireland is sick of being bullied by Europe, and i think that's what a lot of Irish people intend to show Europe on polling day unless a much better reason not to than we have at the moment is made clear.

Godge

washman3 wrote: »

If you believe "we all partied", people went mad borrowing", "cribbers should commit suicide", "nobody was forced to pay 4 times the value of a house", "wear the green jersey", "we've turned the corner", "we're making steady progress", "Frankfurts way or Labours way", "jobless recovery", "we are where we are", "yes for jobs", then a yes vote is your best option.
Or, if you have no problem with a retired civil servent getting €1000 a week coupled with the old age pension(both of which are payed by the taxpayer),
or if you believe that developers and speculators who brought about this mess can walk away scot-free from their debts,while in the meantime be paid €100,000 to €200,000 to "manage" their own mess, then a yes vote is a must.!!

Or, if you believe that your local Garda Station,National School,SNA,hospital A&E, cuts of €9 a week to your elderly neighbour's blind pension,school bus routes,and a host of sneaky stealth taxes are sacrificed to pay for the above, then a now vote must be considered.

The choice is yours.......!!!!!!

This post is ridiculous. How will our deficit be financed if we vote no?

If you want social welfare cut by 50%, if you want public service pay cut by 20%, if you want income tax increased by 10%, vote no.

Palmach

I am pie wrote: »

No to funding ?

What are you saying No to ?

No to bailing out bankers. No to top down German decisions making affecting the EU

Godge

Godge wrote: »

This post is ridiculous. How will our deficit be financed if we vote no?

If you want social welfare cut by 50%, if you want public service pay cut by 20%, if you want income tax increased by 10%, vote no.

Do you really believe that the EU will cut off our funding if we vote no, after the way they treated Greece, the boldest boy in the class?

If i were Enda Kenny, and the EU threatened to cut off our funding, we would no longer have any incentive to play nice. I would cease all repayments of unsecured bank bondholders in Europe, threaten to default on all of our EU/IMF loans, and give the order to get the printing presses in the Central Bank in Sandyford printing the Punt again as a precursor to leaving the euro,

Watch what the would EU say then.

The nuclear option has implications for both sides, and i don't think Europe has the balls to push the button, for all their sabre-rattling. It would be even less in their interest than it would in ours.