Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

Defiler Of The Coffin

Whatever next? Scofflaw unmasked as Declan Ganley?

The Waltzing Consumer

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are the yes camp not making more people aware of this so far?

Because when it comes to referendums, the yes campaigners are usually extremely arrogant, and I say that as a yes voter. The treaty is a good step for Europe and Ireland and will mean that parties like FF (who overspent so much just to stay in Government through populist policies) cannot do so as easily anymore.

But the arrogance does put people off and you nearly have to forgive them when the no side usually come out with the most blatant lies and fabrications and instead of concentrating on the treaty, they have spend a significant portion of time and energy convincing people that Coir and SF and ULA misinformation is not true, so that would drive anyone into arrogance.

whatstherush

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The treaty is a good step for Europe and Ireland and will mean that parties like FF (who overspent so much just to stay in Government through populist policies) cannot do so as easily anymore.

Will the treaty stop something like that from happening again though. FF were running balanced budgets up until 08 using unsustainable property taxes. Does the treaty allow for examination of how budgets are being balanced and say X tax revenue is unsustainable, you need change your tax revenue streams?

Dr Galen

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Whatever next? Scofflaw unmasked as Declan Ganley?

My money is on Joan Burton tbh

Sand

Godge wrote: »

it is mad isn't it? If we reject the treaty, European markets will be thrown into disarray, no EU state will be able to borrow money and we will have to correct our finances overnight with the biggest austerity package ever but the Sinn Fein liars think voting no means rejecting austerity. If it wasn't so serious, I would laugh instead of cry.

Lets break that down:

"If we reject the treaty,

1 - European markets will be thrown into disarray,
2 - no EU state will be able to borrow money
3 - and we will have to correct our finances overnight with the biggest austerity package ever"

Thats a pretty hefty series of claims.

1 - Theres no evidence that they will be. Ireland is a blip and Irelands rejection of the treaty will only mean Ireland will not participate. It will not carry any wider implications - nobody really cares about Irelands "poster boy" status which is a self awarded title...

2 - No EU state will be able to borrow money? Really? No, really? Even the non Euro states?

3 - We wont have to correct our finances overnight - we should certainly have corrected them much faster than we have, but apparently the route to economic success is to threaten people with a decade of tax hikes, wage cuts and denial. Apparently.

We are in the Troika bailout which is agreed and funded already. Rejection of the treaty will have zero impact on the existing bailout - it can only affect future bailouts. And we all know that the bailout is going to work so we wont need a second one...right?

Even if Ireland did need a second bailout, the IMF does not require this stupid treaty to work with us - and as Iceland has proven, the less the ECB has to do with a bailout the better. *Even* if we did need ESM access at some point, lets sign up for the Treaty *then* when there is some benefit. Currently there is *zero* benefit.

As the matter is so serious, perhaps we should cut out the stupid "ATM will run out of money" scaremongering and examine the treaty on its merits - this is something, that if passed, Ireland will have to live with for the next couple of decades at a minimum. We rushed into the Euro without thinking it through, believing "Ah shure, it'll all sort itself out" - can we learn something from that and not rush into a bad treaty, strung together on the back of a few napkins by politicians to appease a derranged German narrative of the crisis?

This treaty is not a vote on austerity, or on septic tanks, or bin charges, or exiting the euro. Its a very specific set of fiscal handcuffs not just for the next year or two, but for decades to come. And as Karl Whelan has pointed out, the underlying economic theory for those fiscal handcuffs makes less sense than the gold standard of the 1930s...

At least those who inflicted damage on the world economy by sticking to the Gold Standard in the 1930s can claim to have been following prevailing economic thinking. The politicians who have designed these rules will have no such defence.

Wendero

Hi, I need some help.

Basically, does anyone know of any politically neutral or right-winged organisations that will be campaigning against the compact? I'm right-winged myself but I'm against the fiscal compact, just not for the reasons the left is against it.

I'd like to join the campaign against the compact, but I don't want to be part of some kind of stone-throwing mob (not that all leftists are stone-throwers, just far too many of them).

Would really appreciate help
/John

K-9

Wendero wrote: »

Hi, I need some help.

Basically, does anyone know of any politically neutral or right-winged organisations that will be campaigning against the compact? I'm right-winged myself but I'm against the fiscal compact, just not for the reasons the left is against it.

I'd like to join the campaign against the compact, but I don't want to be part of some kind of stone-throwing mob (not that all leftists are stone-throwers, just far too many of them).

Would really appreciate help
/John

Maybe Ganley might throw his hat in, but IIRC he isn't particularly opposed to greater economic union. I can't think of any groups off hand, did any campaign on Lisbon, barring Libertas?

Godge

Sand wrote: »

Lets break that down:

"If we reject the treaty,

1 - European markets will be thrown into disarray,
2 - no EU state will be able to borrow money
3 - and we will have to correct our finances overnight with the biggest austerity package ever"

Thats a pretty hefty series of claims.

1 - Theres no evidence that they will be. Ireland is a blip and Irelands rejection of the treaty will only mean Ireland will not participate. It will not carry any wider implications - nobody really cares about Irelands "poster boy" status which is a self awarded title...

2 - No EU state will be able to borrow money? Really? No, really? Even the non Euro states?

3 - We wont have to correct our finances overnight - we should certainly have corrected them much faster than we have, but apparently the route to economic success is to threaten people with a decade of tax hikes, wage cuts and denial. Apparently.

We are in the Troika bailout which is agreed and funded already. Rejection of the treaty will have zero impact on the existing bailout - it can only affect future bailouts. And we all know that the bailout is going to work so we wont need a second one...right?

Even if Ireland did need a second bailout, the IMF does not require this stupid treaty to work with us - and as Iceland has proven, the less the ECB has to do with a bailout the better. *Even* if we did need ESM access at some point, lets sign up for the Treaty *then* when there is some benefit. Currently there is *zero* benefit.

As the matter is so serious, perhaps we should cut out the stupid "ATM will run out of money" scaremongering and examine the treaty on its merits - this is something, that if passed, Ireland will have to live with for the next couple of decades at a minimum. We rushed into the Euro without thinking it through, believing "Ah shure, it'll all sort itself out" - can we learn something from that and not rush into a bad treaty, strung together on the back of a few napkins by politicians to appease a derranged German narrative of the crisis?

This treaty is not a vote on austerity, or on septic tanks, or bin charges, or exiting the euro. Its a very specific set of fiscal handcuffs not just for the next year or two, but for decades to come. And as Karl Whelan has pointed out, the underlying economic theory for those fiscal handcuffs makes less sense than the gold standard of the 1930s...

Just to deal with point 1 on the markets, the Euro dropped straight away when it was announced we needed a referendum. It later recovered when the market sentiment was that we would pass the referendum. Watch the markets as opinion polls come out closer to the referendum to see the effects.

On 2, bond rates will go up for everyone if the treaty is rejected. OK, I exaggerated but even Germany will have to pay a percentage or two extra if we reject. The PIIGS will be out of the market plus a few others.

As for 3, well, if we reject our EU friends won't want to help and will rapidly disown us. Cue an overnight readjustment.

As for Karl Whelan's analysis, I prefer Seamus Coffey's

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/02/repaying-debt.html

Wendero

K-9, thanks. Yeah, I've heard that about Ganley that he might not oppose this compact.

Libertas is dead, isn't it? Their website certainly is.

Will keep looking for an organisation/campaign of some sort. It doesn't have to be right-winged, politically neutral will do. As long as it's not like the "Occupy Dame street" or "Anti-fascist Action" groups, I'm happy enough to support them

There is a right-winged case to be made against the compact, based on economic science. Me thinks someone should make that case and broaden the appeal of the opposition.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

Just to deal with point 1 on the markets, the Euro dropped straight away when it was announced we needed a referendum. It later recovered when the market sentiment was that we would pass the referendum. Watch the markets as opinion polls come out closer to the referendum to see the effects.

On 2, bond rates will go up for everyone if the treaty is rejected. OK, I exaggerated but even Germany will have to pay a percentage or two extra if we reject. The PIIGS will be out of the market plus a few others.

As for 3, well, if we reject our EU friends won't want to help and will rapidly disown us. Cue an overnight readjustment.

As for Karl Whelan's analysis, I prefer Seamus Coffey's

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/02/repaying-debt.html

Markets are a bit schizophrenic like that, movements over a few hours aren't worth even mentioning really.

Thinking about us saying No, I was thinking it wouldn't mean that much after the initial shock and would settle down a week or so later. Thinking about it, it does kind of leave the Treaty pointless? Euro members abiding by new rules except for one or two?

Coffey is pretty good in looking at things from a Government point of view, but outlining pitfalls and stumbling blocks.

Wendero wrote: »

K-9, thanks. Yeah, I've heard that about Ganley that he might not oppose this compact.

Libertas is dead, isn't it? Their website certainly is.

I don't think the website was ever particularly live! Ganley was supposed to publish his simplified Treaty on it, never materialised AFAIK!

Will keep looking for an organisation/campaign of some sort. It doesn't have to be right-winged, politically neutral will do. As long as it's not like the "Occupy Dame street" or "Anti-fascist Action" groups, I'm happy enough to support them

Independent groups certainly sprang up during Lisbon but they all seemed to be campaigning for a Yes. There's certainly a market there on the No side, the same faces like Higgins and McKenna can switch floating voters away.

There is a right-winged case to be made against the compact, based on economic science. Me thinks someone should make that case and broaden the appeal of the opposition.

There's certainly a few economists who could organise something if they wanted to, the new cool gurus!

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

I've heard that about Ganley that he might not oppose this compact

I heard him on RTE radio this morning saying he definitely will campaign, but has not yet decided how. I didn't hear any mention of Libertas at all.

The radio presenter was pushing him pretty hard to nail his colours to the mast, and looking for a headline, but he wasn't being cornered, and basically said that it was too early to call. He said that although the treaty wouldn't solve any of the current problems in Europe, on balance, the defecit limits would appear to be a good thing to keep us on track in the future, but that he still believed Ireland should use the vote as an opportunity to be pragmatic and force concessions on non-sovreign Irish debt and associated issues from the EU.

He said that if the powers that be made changes to address some of the consequences of the inequity going on at the heart of the union, and addressed some of the unfair situation that has been foisted on us regarding paying off not just our debts, but other countries gambling losses as well as part of this referendum, then he would likely be able to campaign for a yes vote.

As usual, he also voiced strong concerns about the nature of european democracy and how decisions of crucial importance to us are being taken by people who we have not democratically elected, and cannot hold to account.

Doc Ruby

Sand wrote: »

Currently there is *zero* benefit.

There doesn't seem to be much harm either. If fiscal handcuffs mean politicians can't sink the country deeper in debt in one direction I'm all for them. There's nothing in the treaty that would prevent any of the events of the bubble happening again as far as I can see.

Initially I was opposed to the treaty because I thought a "no" might force the government off the loans from Europe, but now that doesn't seem to be the case. It won't in fact force a hard correction.

So really may as well just get it done.

snubbleste

RnaG reporting the Taoiseach at a Brussels news conference says it will be a wider question put to the electorate:
Do you want to be in the euro or not?

Other news outlets picking it up: http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/details-of-referendum-question-revealed/

FreudianSlippers

snubbleste wrote: »

RnaG reporting the Taoiseach at a Brussels news conference says it will be a wider question put to the electorate:
Do you want to be in the euro or not?

Other news outlets picking it up: http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/details-of-referendum-question-revealed/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0302/treaty.html

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

RnaG reporting the Taoiseach at a Brussels news conference says it will be a wider question put to the electorate:
Do you want to be in the euro or not?

This is ridiculous, and smells like more EU bully tactics to me. Are they actually leaking word of a hushed conscensus within the EU that if Ireland votes "no" we will be left out of Europe, and using our own Taoiseach to send the message to us, in Irish no less?

So if we're to believe what Kenny says, then the stakes for voting "no" are now many times higher than they were yesterday when this was just a vote on a fiscal agreement, and not a vote on our very membership of europe?

What an infuriating attempt to scare us into voting Europe's way (yet again). Why can't they just give us the facts and let us decide for ourselves?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dubit10

Deleted User wrote: »

This is ridiculous, and smells like more EU bully tactics to me. Are they actually leaking word of a hushed conscensus within the EU that if Ireland votes "no" we will be left out of Europe, and using our own Taoiseach to send the message to us, in Irish no less?

So if we're to believe what Kenny says, then the stakes for voting "no" are now many times higher than they were yesterday when this was just a vote on a fiscal agreement, and not a vote on our very membership of europe?

What an infuriating attempt to scare us into voting Europe's way (yet again). Why can't they just give us the facts and let us decide for ourselves?

The sad part is the bully boy tactics these next few weeks will actually work. I'm afraid the Irish are easily lead on.

femur61

If we are left out of Europe will the Chinese still invest? Will the multinationals still invest? These are genuine concerns. We need to get our house in order we are borrowing far too much and it is not just bank debt but government debt as well that has gotten us into this mess.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

This is ridiculous, and smells like more EU bully tactics to me. Are they actually leaking word of a hushed conscensus within the EU that if Ireland votes "no" we will be left out of Europe, and using our own Taoiseach to send the message to us, in Irish no less?

So if we're to believe what Kenny says, then the stakes for voting "no" are now many times higher than they were yesterday when this was just a vote on a fiscal agreement, and not a vote on our very membership of europe?

What an infuriating attempt to scare us into voting Europe's way (yet again). Why can't they just give us the facts and let us decide for ourselves?

It's a financial agreement that is central to the very core of our continued membership of the Eurozone and (as it currently stands) the EU.

Scofflaw

snubbleste wrote: »

RnaG reporting the Taoiseach at a Brussels news conference says it will be a wider question put to the electorate:
Do you want to be in the euro or not?

Other news outlets picking it up: http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/details-of-referendum-question-revealed/

That seems pointless, at least in the sense of a referendum actually asking that question, since a Yes to that doesn't empower the government to ratify.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Google Translate :

The people are focusing on the question bheish the newspapers, the mystical to be a part of people in Europe and the Eurozone and the euro in the future. Or not this detail dheanna.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

This is ridiculous, and smells like more EU bully tactics to me. Are they actually leaking word of a hushed conscensus within the EU that if Ireland votes "no" we will be left out of Europe, and using our own Taoiseach to send the message to us, in Irish no less?

So if we're to believe what Kenny says, then the stakes for voting "no" are now many times higher than they were yesterday when this was just a vote on a fiscal agreement, and not a vote on our very membership of europe?

What an infuriating attempt to scare us into voting Europe's way (yet again). Why can't they just give us the facts and let us decide for ourselves?

Sorry, you've confused me - the Taoiseach says something, and it's "EU bully tactics"? Is the Taoiseach not Irish? How is what he says an "EU" tactic?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's a financial agreement that is central to the very core of our continued membership of the Eurozone and (as it currently stands) the EU.

Then why is there an option for the treaty to be ratified based on a mere majority vote, rather than on a basis of cross european unanimity unless there's an implicit intention to create a 2-tier europe, as they have always claimed there isn't.

Why, if we're in a union where everyone is on an equal footing, and we're now being given the option to say no, and relegate ourselves to a new bottom tier, is it even being called a "fiscal treaty", instead of a vote on changing what is at the very core of europe? Have you read the treaty? It's only five pages long, and yet we're supposed to believe that it now could result in the breakup of europe into a powerful elite primary group, and a second tier of subservient countries (including UK and Czech Rep so far).

I think it's more bully tactics, and if it's not, somebody had bloody well better come out and properly clarify it so we can be clear on exactly what we're voting for, instead of our head of state dropping hints in Irish and waiting for rumours to be picked up by domestic media in the only country in the world that might understand what was being said.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry, you've confused me - the Taoiseach says something, and it's "EU bully tactics"? Is the Taoiseach not Irish? How is what he says an "EU" tactic?

I was questioning the extent to which he might be willing to push the EU's pro ratification agenda at home. I was asking how much is he concerned with getting this thing passed to keep his friends in the EU happy and keep in well politically with them, versus protecting the Irish people's right to vote without fear or intimidation on an issue that is essentially their own choice to make, regardless if they make a choice which is politically very inconvenient for Europe or not.

His friends in the EU want him to push this thing through by any means. His people want him to defend their right to choice, even if it's a choice his friends might not like. To me that's a conflict of interest, and I'm wondering which way he's inclined to act, and whether he might be allowing himself to be used as a mouthpiece for the EU agenda.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

His friends in the EU want him to push this thing through by any means. His people want him to defend their right to choice, even if it's a choice his friends might not like. To me that's a conflict of interest, and I'm wondering which way he's inclined to act, and whether he might be allowing himself to be used as a mouthpiece for the EU agenda.

Given his u-turn on paying off bondholders and his point-blank refusal to ensure that we don't have to pay debts that aren't ours, combined with his two-faced address to the nation vs what he said abroad, I'm not holding my breath.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry, you've confused me - the Taoiseach says something, and it's "EU bully tactics"? Is the Taoiseach not Irish? How is what he says an "EU" tactic?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

No, Inda is Belgian - I though everyone knew his full name is: Inda Jean-Paul Hertz Van Rentals Kenny.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I was questioning the extent to which he might be willing to push the EU's pro ratification agenda at home. I was asking how much is he concerned with getting this thing passed to keep his friends in the EU happy and keep in well politically with them, versus protecting the Irish people's right to vote without fear or intimidation on an issue that is essentially their own choice to make, regardless if they make a choice which is politically very inconvenient for Europe or not.

His friends in the EU want him to push this thing through by any means. His people want him to defend their right to choice, even if it's a choice his friends might not like. To me that's a conflict of interest, and I'm wondering which way he's inclined to act, and whether he might be allowing himself to be used as a mouthpiece for the EU agenda.

You think the Taoiseach is secretly against the treaty or that he is only campaigning for it for his own political purposes?

Gloomtastic!

Maybe if we voted No, and lose access to the ESF, then Ireland would have to finally get it's house in order.

Why are we agreeing to borrow yet more money we can't afford to pay back?

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Then why is there an option for the treaty to be ratified based on a mere majority vote, rather than on a basis of cross european unanimity unless there's an implicit intention to create a 2-tier europe, as they have always claimed there isn't.

It's not a "majority vote" - it only comes into force for those who ratify, and only for them once 11 others have ratified along with them. That prevents it being binding only on a minority within the eurozone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why, if we're in a union where everyone is on an equal footing, and we're now being given the option to say no, and relegate ourselves to a new bottom tier, is it even being called a "fiscal treaty", instead of a vote on changing what is at the very core of europe? Have you read the treaty? It's only five pages long, and yet we're supposed to believe that it now could result in the breakup of europe into a powerful elite primary group, and a second tier of subservient countries (including UK and Czech Rep so far).

I think it's more bully tactics, and if it's not, somebody had bloody well better come out and properly clarify it so we can be clear on exactly what we're voting for, instead of our head of state dropping hints in Irish and waiting for rumours to be picked up by domestic media in the only country in the world that might understand what was being said.

It's something that only needs to apply within the eurozone, because it's about the stability of the euro. It only applies to non-euro countries that ratify if/when they join the euro.

Deleted User wrote: »

I was questioning the extent to which he might be willing to push the EU's pro ratification agenda at home. I was asking how much is he concerned with getting this thing passed to keep his friends in the EU happy and keep in well politically with them, versus protecting the Irish people's right to vote without fear or intimidation on an issue that is essentially their own choice to make, regardless if they make a choice which is politically very inconvenient for Europe or not.

His friends in the EU want him to push this thing through by any means. His people want him to defend their right to choice, even if it's a choice his friends might not like. To me that's a conflict of interest, and I'm wondering which way he's inclined to act, and whether he might be allowing himself to be used as a mouthpiece for the EU agenda.

There's some really huge assumptions in there, and some extremely biased language. "His friends" (they're not our friends!) "want him to push this through at all costs" - why would they care (a rejection by Ireland doesn't stop them implementing it), and what evidence do you have for the claim?

As for "defend their right to choice" - we elect a government, and the government does what it believes is in the best interests of the country. So your claim makes a huge assumption that Kenny doesn't believe this is in the best interests of the country, and is forcing it on us because "his friends" or "the EU" are forcing it on him. And that doesn't even make sense, because we're having a referendum, where the people will decide - is that not exercising our right to choose? And how is Kenny simultaneously "pushing this thing through by any means" and giving us a referendum on it?

What you're saying is riddled with bias and contradictions - and I don't intend to offend or attack you by saying so, only to point it out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Maybe if we voted No, and lose access to the ESF, then Ireland would have to finally get it's house in order.

Why are we agreeing to borrow yet more money we can't afford to pay back?

We're not - the treaty actually commits us to less borrowing, and to reducing the amount we owe (relative to GDP). Agreeing that gives us access to the new bailout facility, while hopefully making it less likely we'll need it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gloomtastic!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Maybe if we voted No, and lose access to the ESF, then Ireland would have to finally get it's house in order.

Why are we agreeing to borrow yet more money we can't afford to pay back?

We're not - the treaty actually commits us to less borrowing, and to reducing the amount we owe (relative to GDP). Agreeing that gives us access to the new bailout facility, while hopefully making it less likely we'll need it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So we can look at the cake, but we mustn't eat any. Yeah right!

After 5 years of kicking the can down the road, it's time this country faced down the Unions and introduced austerity to where it's actually needed. A No vote would mean that would have to happen - no more money for increments etc etc etc ad nauseum.

That's why I'm going to vote No.