Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed
Options
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »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.
You can hold that view but that is a bit like someone in the boom buying an apartment off the plans hoping to flip it eighteen months later. At some stage the merry-go-round crashes and you come flying off hurting yourself badly. Ditto with the EU, at some stage enough becomes enough for the Germans and French and some country will get it in the neck. I believe voting no will put our neck in that noose.0 -
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.
Not sure which way I will vote tbh - but won't a yes vote involve some (if not all of the above)?
I hope that people do not think that by voting YES it will mean that we can continue borrowing to pay our huge SW/PS pay/pensions bill (not PS bashing at all), it won' mean paying less taxes in the future and like Lisbon it won't mean jobs - what it boils down to is this - we will need a 2nd bailout and if we want to avail of the ESM then we have to vote yes.
What we should do is bargain, if our vote is for sale then negotiate accordingly.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »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.
Are you for real? Leaving the Euro and "starting the printing presses" would turn this country third-world overnight! So so childish...and moronic.
People with your mentality get into leadership positions sometimes, and it usually spells disaster for the country. Robert Mugabe comes to mind. Why would we threaten Europe (the place keeping us afloat) so much? You know, what we do now has implications for the future. Something that seems lost on many people.0 -
Rojomcdojo wrote: »Are you for real? Leaving the Euro and "starting the printing presses" would turn this country third-world overnight! So so childish...and moronic.
People with your mentality get into leadership positions sometimes, and it usually spells disaster for the country. Robert Mugabe comes to mind.
Keep your personal insults to yourself please. This is a forum for political debate. You don't have to agree with my opinion but you don't need to resort to insults in your disagreement with me.
If you read my post more carefully, you'll see i was referring to the threat of leaving the euro, just like the EU are threatening to cut us off from the stability fund, but may or may not actually do it. A huge amount is accomplished regularly in politics on the back of veiled threats without anything of the like ever coming to pass, and such a hysterical reaction from you over it isn't warranted. Europe has been threatening us with various doomsday scenarios for years if we don't vote yes to this or that. Why is it so outlandish to believe that we could play hardball too?
And thanks for your comparison to mugabe by the way, i found it particularly insulting, given that i abhor everything he stands for, and know more about his regime than most. I wonder whether you have any interest in genuine, respectful political debate, or are just here to harangue people who don't agree with everything you believe?0 -
Rojomcdojo wrote: »Are you for real? Leaving the Euro and "starting the printing presses" would turn this country third-world overnight! So so childish...and moronic.
People with your mentality get into leadership positions sometimes, and it usually spells disaster for the country. Robert Mugabe comes to mind. Why would we threaten Europe (the place keeping us afloat) so much? You know, what we do now has implications for the future. Something that seems lost on many people.
I can see where you are coming from and agree that the views are extreme - here's a thing though, no matter what happens we will still be in the Euro - you're right we shouldn't threaten them, but by the same token we should not be threatened and subjected to scaremongering.
We are being told that if we vote no then we cannot avail of more funding - this from the same people who brought you - we will not need a 2nd bailout. FG/Labour have walked themselves into this trap.
As I write this they have now confirmed what I have said above.
http://www.newstalk.ie//2012/news/minister-says-treaty-needed-in-case-of-second-bailout/
"The Minister for Transport has said Ireland needs to ratify the new EU Fiscal Compact Treaty so we can avail of a second bailout in the unlikely event of us needing one."0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »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?
Borrowing from the ESM is conditional on having ratified the proposed treaty. Hence, failure to ratify means that we - not the EU - "cut off our funding" from the ESM.
Arguably, that might be a good thing but are the electorate ready for the subsequent financial fall-out?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Keep your personal insults to yourself please. This is a forum for political debate. You don't have to agree with my opinion but you don't need to resort to insults in your disagreement with me.
If you read my post more carefully, you'll see i was referring to the threat of leaving the euro, just like the EU are threatening to cut us off from the stability fund, but may or may not actually do it. A huge amount is accomplished regularly in politics on the back of veiled threats without anything of the like ever coming to pass, and such a hysterical reaction from you over it isn't warranted. Europe has been threatening us with various doomsday scenarios for years if we don't vote yes to this or that. Why is it so outlandish to believe that we could play hardball too?
And thanks for your comparison to mugabe by the way, i found it particularly insulting, given that i abhor everything he stands for, and know more about his regime than most. I wonder whether you have any interest in genuine, respectful political debate, or are just here to harangue people who don't agree with everything you believe?
A threat is of no use unless you have the intention of carrying it out, otherwise it is a reckless gamble or one gigantic bluff. Not a very sensible way of playing cards.
As for the comments you are responding to, I would agree with the sentiments of what he was saying - i.e. that your approach is extremely short-sighted and dangerous and runs the risk of making us a real basket-case of a country - but if you have a problem with the way he is saying it, you should report the post.0 -
Borrowing from the ESM is conditional on having ratified the proposed treaty. Hence, failure to ratify means that we - not the EU - "cut off our funding" from the ESM.
Arguably, that might be a good thing but are the electorate ready for the subsequent financial fall-out?
But there will be a financial fall-out by voting yes. Personally I think Varadker is making the right noises but should go further and admit that we will be unable to return to the markets and will have to avail of the ESM - he/this goernment should also explain to people that entering into the treaty STILL means that the deificit has to be reduced - this will mean SW cuts/PS wages/pension cuts/higher taxes/new taxes.
This is not vote for FF and who will give you pay rises and increase the dole and the SW - those days are gone.0 -
We are being told that if we vote no then we cannot avail of more funding - this from the same people who brought you - we will not need a 2nd bailout. FG/Labour have walked themselves into this trap..........."The Minister for Transport has said Ireland needs to ratify the new EU Fiscal Compact Treaty so we can avail of a second bailout in the unlikely event of us needing one."
Varadkar is too outspoken as a Minister, and should take some communications lessons and learn to tow the party line a little more closely. This won't be the first time he's talked himself into controversial territory that's outside his brief. He didn't get the finance Ministry, he should stop trying to act like he did.
I like him, and i think he's one of the more straight talking ministers in the cabinet, but someone like Vincent Brown will go to town on him and Fine Gael for allowing such a paradoxical set of statements to come out of the same administration within months of each other.Borrowing from the ESM is conditional on having ratified the proposed treaty. Hence, failure to ratify means that we - not the EU - "cut off our funding" from the ESM.
Semantics. The EU inserted that condition specifically as a result of repeated issues regarding referenda from countries like Ireland who wished to exercise their democratic right to vote as provided by their constitutions. It's very existence in the text is a threat to a country like ireland.Arguably, that might be a good thing but are the electorate ready for the subsequent financial fall-out?But there will be a financial fall-out by voting yes...
Agreed, and nobody seems to know how much, or over what time-frame. If we ratify, Germany can impose austerity on us as they see fit as far as i can make out, so it looks to me like we could be damned if we do and damned if we don't, if their threat of withdrawal of financial support is to be believed.
I don't disagree that we need austerity, in fact i think that a measured rate of cutbacks to get us to a reasonable figure is a good idea, and in our ultimate best interests. The problem is, i don't think that germany will be acting in OUR best interests if we give them this power, and as a result will enforce a faster pace of cutbacks than we can handle while still sustaining our fledgling economic recovery.
Do any of you know any Germans? If you do, speak to them and ask them what the average German thinks of how Ireland behaved during the boom, and what should be done about it. The likelihood is that you'll get a report of an incomplete view of the Irish situation from an electorate that's in favour of enforcing a very stringent financial regime to get us back on track with minimal further exposure for the big financial powers who have already paid out enough for what's seen as our recklessness, and our recklessness alone.
I'm still undecided about how I'll vote, but the prospect handing over further control of our finances to a major power whose electorate has that kind of view at such a precarious time for our country scares me.0 -
Is Ireland the only country doing a referendum?
Also I don't apprericate the EU's bullyish attiude. Not saying that i'll vote yes or no because of it. But I feel very strongly about this because it sends a very negative message. That the EU basically have a chain around our neck and we're just supposed to bow down to whatever they want.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Varadkar is too outspoken as a Minister, and should take some communications lessons and learn to tow the party line a little more closely. This won't be the first time he's talked himself into controversial territory that's outside his brief. He didn't get the finance Ministry, he should stop trying to act like he did.
Someone like Vincent Brown will go to town on him and Fine Gael for allowing such a paradoxical set of statements to come out of the same administration within months of each other.
They don't have a choice - from the time the referendum was on the table their immediate mantra was - "if we vote no then we won't be able to access the fund" - they walked themselves into this trap. This is the issue of the treaty and something that they couldn't back away from.
Varadker (not a fan really) is being 50% honest here, we won't access the fund - but we will need to and this has been flagged way before the referendum - it was flagged after the first bailout.0 -
I have not read the whole thread so i am not sure if this point has been made already.
I think the Govt and the Yes side are right is stressing that a No vote here will badly affect us when it comes to funding and our future participation in the Euro,a nd the future of teh Euro as a currency.
Consider this
In late 2011 the euro was under sever pressure from the markets.
It was seen as a flawed experiment. You had monetary union but members could still set their own budgets, sell their own bonds, and the ECB did not have the same powers as other central banks when it came to dealing with the currency.
All these problems were masked over during the good times but now the chickens were coming home to roost.
So in December the EU members (both Euro and non Euro) come up with this 'fiscal compact' to give the Euro a bit more credibility and put it on a firmer footing, and as a result things have stabilised.
So now if Ireland votes No to the fiscal compact you have a situation where one member of the Euro is essentially not agreeing to go ahead with the plan to stabilise, and hopefully save the currency.
So then the whole uncertainty starts again and confidence in the Euro experiment drops and again questions start to be asked about the viability of the currency.
So I fully believe that a Yes vote is essential unless we want to see greater uncertainty about, and possibly the collapse of the Euro.0 -
“Ireland, take that gun out of your mouth and let’s talk about this.”Deleted User wrote: »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.0 -
-
To my mind the real problem is the credibility of the parties advising acceptance, the best thing our beloved politicians could do is keep quiet, their credibility is shot and anything of significance that they endorse has to be viewed as suspect based on their track record.
I think that we will follow the usual pattern get a No vote initially, followed by the normal "Shur Paddy is awful thick and didn't understand it, we will just run it again with smaller words until we get the right answer"0 -
But there will be a financial fall-out by voting yes. Personally I think Varadker is making the right noises but should go further and admit that we will be unable to return to the markets and will have to avail of the ESM - he/this goernment should also explain to people that entering into the treaty STILL means that the deificit has to be reduced - this will mean SW cuts/PS wages/pension cuts/higher taxes/new taxes.
This is not vote for FF and who will give you pay rises and increase the dole and the SW - those days are gone.
I can agree with much of that although I suspect the government would prefer to continue - at least publically - with the idea of returning to the markets asap.
As for the financial fall-out, it will be a larger in the event of a No vote I believe as we'll be in effect throwing ourselves on the "tender mercies" of financial traders, by cutting off the ESM option. Given that they were starting to tearing us apart when the Troika stepped in, I personally suspect it'd be akin to looking to a pack of wolves for mercy but if that is really what the electorate want, far be it from me to deny them.0 -
I can agree with much of that although I suspect the government would prefer to continue - at least publically - with the idea of returning to the markets asap.
As for the financial fall-out, it will be a larger in the event of a No vote I believe as we'll be in effect throwing ourselves on the "tender mercies" of financial traders, by cutting off the ESM option. Given that they were starting to tearing us apart when the Troika stepped in, I personally suspect it'd be akin to looking to a pack of wolves for mercy but if that is really what the electorate want, far be it from me to deny them.
I think you have yourself followed the logic - it cannot be the case that we are heading back to the markets but need to vote this in to secure funding, *just in case*.
They have played this wrong, they should have focused on the issue instead of starting with the scaremongering - it should never have been about "securing funding that we don't need".0 -
To my mind the real problem is the credibility of the parties advising acceptance, the best thing our beloved politicians could do is keep quiet, their credibility is shot and anything of significance that they endorse has to be viewed as suspect based on their track record.
I think that we will follow the usual pattern get a No vote initially, followed by the normal "Shur Paddy is awful thick and didn't understand it, we will just run it again with smaller words until we get the right answer"
teh credibility of those against it is not exactly stellar either. thats why we have to make up our own mind0 -
Is it not an indictment of the whole referendum process that the second referendum returns a yes? I mean, if people did understand what they were voting on, then why two different responses to the same question?I think that we will follow the usual pattern get a No vote initially, followed by the normal "Shur Paddy is awful thick and didn't understand it, we will just run it again with smaller words until we get the right answer"0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Agreed, and nobody seems to know how much, or over what time-frame. If we ratify, Germany can impose austerity on us as they see fit as far as i can make out, so it looks to me like we could be damned if we do and damned if we don't, if their threat of withdrawal of financial support is to be believed.
I don't disagree that we need austerity, in fact i think that a measured rate of cutbacks to get us to a reasonable figure is a good idea, and in our ultimate best interests. The problem is, i don't think that germany will be acting in OUR best interests if we give them this power, and as a result will enforce a faster pace of cutbacks than we can handle while still sustaining our fledgling economic recovery.
Do any of you know any Germans? If you do, speak to them and ask them what the average German thinks of how Ireland behaved during the boom, and what should be done about it. The likelihood is that you'll get a report of an incomplete view of the Irish situation from an electorate that's in favour of enforcing a very stringent financial regime to get us back on track with minimal further exposure for the big financial powers who have already paid out enough for what's seen as our recklessness, and our recklessness alone.
I'm still undecided about how I'll vote, but the prospect handing over further control of our finances to a major power whose electorate has that kind of view at such a precarious time for our country scares me.
I wouldn't call it austerity - it's a complete reset of our economy.
I know Germans and they don't care about us - we don't really rate as much more than a fly on a window - we still have an over inflated ego - we think that we are of the utmost importance, we're not. So you are right to say that the Germans don't have our best interest at heart - nor should they, we have our own government who should do this.
If we vote NO then it will march on regardless - if we vote yes then it could be a case of simply confirming what we voted for in previous referenda??0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok I've read it now and heres why im voting yes.
Yes, this does mean cut backs. But not as severe as if we need more funding but cant get it from the ESM.
Im a middle income earner who has a dependant gf with very serious medical conditions that are paid for by a medical card. If she doesnt get that medicine she will die. That scheme is currently funded by the bailout money. I dont like that that is the case, but its a fact. Im not goint to do anything to jeapardise that.0 -
I think you have yourself followed the logic - it cannot be the case that we are heading back to the markets but need to vote this in to secure funding, *just in case*.
They have played this wrong, they should have focused on the issue instead of starting with the scaremongering - it should never have been about "securing funding that we don't need".
It's not so much "funding we don't need", though, as far as the markets are concerned, so much as "the option of funding we might need".
Davy stockbrokers make a good case that the current position of Irish bonds is based on the fact that our debt is both explicitly and implicitly backed by the troika's wallet.
So it's not just about whether we would need the ESM as a bailout fund, as that we need access to it as part of our return to the markets, paradoxically enough.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
This article reports that a senior figure within Fianna Fail described the Fiscal Treaty as "madness". So, it's not just the familiar Boyd-Barrett/Pearse Doherty axis and other assorted fringe radicals that have major problems with the way Europe is handling this. There may be a gun in Ireland's mouth, but it isn't our finger on the trigger.
Personally, I'll probably stop viewing the Boards.ie Politics threads on this issue shorty, before the smug count of pro-compact posters reaches toxic levels (Christ knows I'll be getting enough of that from the traditional media without needing to come here for it.) Suffice to say, I'm tired of reading about how we need to be more like Germany - you know, that country who benefited enormously from a massive bailout after having devastated the entire continent through war. That may be a gross simplification, but then so is "Paddy needs to learn how to handle money."0 -
Is it not an indictment of the whole referendum process that the second referendum returns a yes? I mean, if people did understand what they were voting on, then why two different responses to the same question?
Yes. But that would mean examining the issue of whether we should hold referenda on each and every EU Treaty (bar the Accession ones).
We could just go for simple system like Germany has where their Basic Law (Constitution) says:Article 23
European Union - Protection of basic rights - Principle of subsidiarity
(1) With a view to establishing a united Europe, the Federal Republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union that is committed to democratic, social and federal principles, to the rule of law, and to the principle of subsidiarity, and that guarantees a level of protection of basic rights essentially comparable to that afforded by this Basic Law. To this end the Federation may transfer sovereign powers by a law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union, as well as changes in its treaty foundations and comparable regulations that amend or supplement this Basic Law, or make such amendments or supplements possible, shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 79.
(1a) The Bundestag and the Bundesrat shall have the right to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to challenge a legislative act of the European Union for infringing the principle of subsidiarity. The Bundestag is obliged to initiate such an action at the request of one fourth of its Members. By a statute requiring the consent of the Bundesrat, exceptions from the first sentence of paragraph (2) of Article 42, and the first sentence of paragraph (2) of Article 52, may be authorised for the exercise of the rights granted to the Bundestag and the Bundesrat under the contractual foundations of the European Union.
(Article 79 concerns amendments to the Basic Law, Article 42 relates to public sittings of the Bundestag and Article 52 relates to the Bundesrat rules of procedure).
You can probably imagine how a referendum to introduce such a change here would go though...0 -
It's not so much "funding we don't need", though, as far as the markets are concerned, so much as "the option of funding we might need".
Davy stockbrokers make a good case that the current position of Irish bonds is based on the fact that our debt is both explicitly and implicitly backed by the troika's wallet.
So it's not just about whether we would need the ESM as a bailout fund, as that we need access to it as part of our return to the markets, paradoxically enough.
cordially,
Scofflaw
I think you have hit my point - it is not just about needing the ESM as a bailout fund in the unlikely event that we may need it - I think that's where they made the blunder.
The focus is now on the bailout that we never needed in the first place - it's now clear that it's a possibility. So it's about credibility really.0 -
I wouldn't call it austerity - it's a complete reset of our economy.
I know Germans and they don't care about us - we don't really rate as much more than a fly on a window - we still have an over inflated ego - we think that we are of the utmost importance, we're not. So you are right to say that the Germans don't have our best interest at heart - nor should they, we have our own government who should do this.
If we vote NO then it will march on regardless - if we vote yes then it could be a case of simply confirming what we voted for in previous referenda??
This is exactly my concern. What choice do we have, really? I guess my attitude re: playing hardball etc, comes from a long history of being bullied by europe into making decisions that are in europe's best interests. I'm sick of it.
I am NOT a Euro sceptic, or anti-EU. At the moment i want to vote yes, but am really struggling to find a good reason to that outweighs all the bully boy tactics that we're on the receiving end of yet again, that i am quite frankly fed up of, and i honestly think that a lot of the population, even the ones who were formerly pro-europe, are now in the same boat.
Some honesty about what's going on here would help incentivise people to vote yes. If our government line was along the lines of, "look, let's be honest, the country's fecked, there isn't a hope we will get back into the markets anytime soon, our bailout is based on pie in the sky growth figures, and we ARE going to need a second loan program, so why shoot ourselves in the foot here with access to the EFSF" it might go a long way to convincing us.
That, as well as adding a bit of reassurance from Germany that we will be allowed to see out our current difficulties and get back on our feet before they come in and pull the rug out from under us with yet more austerity (which i think is going to have to be offered in any case), might convince us to vote yes, but at the moment, all i can see is scaremongering and bully tactics, and "we'll go ahead without you" etc.
I think that people have had it up to their back teeth with that from Europe, and as an electorate, they are poised to lash out against it, and consequences (not all of which are widely understood) be damned.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »This is exactly my concern. What choice do we have, really? I guess my attitude re: playing hardball etc, comes from a long history of being bullied by europe into making decisions that are in europe's best interests. I'm sick of it.
I am NOT a Euro sceptic, or anti-EU. At the moment i want to vote yes, but am really struggling to find a good reason to that outweighs all the bully boy tactics that we're on the receiving end of yet again, that i am quite frankly fed up of, and i honestly think that a lot of the population, even the ones who were formerly pro-europe, are now in the same boat.
Some honesty about what's going on here would help incentivise people to vote yes. If our government line was along the lines of, "look, let's be honest, the country's fecked, there isn't a hope we will get back into the markets anytime soon, our bailout is based on pie in the sky growth figures, and we ARE going to need a second loan program, so why shoot ourselves in the foot here with access to the EFSF" it might go a long way to convincing us.
That, as well as adding a bit of reassurance from Germany that we will be allowed to see out our current difficulties and get back on our feet before they come in and pull the rug out from under us with yet more austerity (which i think is going to have to be offered in any case), might convince us to vote yes, but at the moment, all i can see is scaremongering and bully tactics, and "we'll go ahead without you" etc.
I think that people have had it up to their back teeth with that from Europe, and as an electorate, they are poised to lash out against it, and consequences (not all of which are widely understood) be damned.
I completely agree with you and have much the same concerns. I know some people see that the Euro and staying within it and hitching our star to this treaty is the only way.
I honestly feel like we are the patient in the hospital who is being killed by the "cure" and doctors are refusing to try something else.
How many "austerity" budgets have we had?
Our unemployment rate is static. Emigration rising, the economy is in the gutter and there seems to be no end in sight.0 -
-
Yes. But that would mean examining the issue of whether we should hold referenda on each and every EU Treaty (bar the Accession ones).
We could just go for simple system like Germany has where their Basic Law (Constitution) says:
(Article 79 concerns amendments to the Basic Law, Article 42 relates to public sittings of the Bundestag and Article 52 relates to the Bundesrat rules of procedure).
You can probably imagine how a referendum to introduce such a change here would go though...
NO sovereignty should be given away EVER without the express consent of the Irish people.
Personally I'd be happy to vote on introducing such budgetary restrictions to be honest (although I do agree that they should be emphasizing stimulus over austerity, but even so the restrictions are definitely a good idea).
My issue with it is that it once again involves acknowledging the self styled king and queen of Europe. No one else wanted this thing. I refuse to accept that membership of the EU means "Merkozy's way or the highway". That's not what it's meant to be about.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement