Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

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

No. I don't. I do genuinely believe that he believes that he's working in Ireland's best interests, but I'm questioning whether he is willing to take suggestion from the other EU heads of state regarding giving our people a subtle prod in the right direction, rather than leave them to their own devices to just vote whatever way they see fit, which is what I think he should be doing. I don't resent voting yes, if that's how I choose, but I DO resent being told how to vote and treated like an idiot by my elected representative.

There is a huge risk involved with this referendum, for us as well as for the EU. I don't know that Enda and the other EU leaders perceive us as able to make what they see as the right decision. That said, what better way to give us a prod in the right direction than by raising the stakes and increasing the perceived negative consequences of the WRONG decision?

Why so much confusion over my post? It's the same type of negative, red herring, emotive issue campaigning that some of the NO camp have had so much success out of with past votes, its just coming from the other side this time. My question was, is Enda stooping to it to get a yes versus trusting us to see the best option for ourselves?

This is NOT a vote on our future in Europe, because if it was, Enda wouldn't be implying it, he would be explicitly stating it, as would the rest of the EU. Furthermore, Britain, the Czech republic, and others would be out in the cold alongside us if we didn't ratify, and we would be in crisis talks about a fractured europe, because so far they haven't ratified it either.

later12

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's a really unfortunate misrepresentation of the FC by Kenny, and almost a threat. Of course, it's also entirely incorrect. He's banking on the fact that most people don't have a clue about what's going on. If he's right, it will probably work.

The fact is that the explicit question here relates to the future of the governance of the EMU. There is also a side question about future access to the ESM funds, a process which does not itself preclude other forms of bailouts at some point in the future (such as bilateral loans, or the establishment of another SPV to extend credit to a troubled sovereign).

There is an implicit question relating to our role within the Eurozone. But it is entirely incorrect to describe this, as Kenny has done, as "the essential question" at hand.

I don't see why, even should we reject this treaty, our immediate position ought to be affected (caveat: the Anglo promissory notes deal, which we ought to consider if offered), or why we could not change our minds some years down the line. The issue of Ireland's future within the EA is going to be ridiculously overplayed, I expect.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

carveone

Deleted User wrote: »

This is NOT a vote on our future in Europe, because if it was, Enda wouldn't be implying it,

I must say it startled me that he'd say that - I'm hoping it's possible that he was just taking the "we're partners in Europe" line and it got a bit out of hand. The question on the paper certainly won't be "do you want to stay in the euro".

he would be explicitly stating it, as would the rest of the EU.

I don't wish to be facetious but remember the absolute crapstorm that rained down when they did state it last year in regards to Greece, which to be fair, was pretty clear cut. Maybe they just don't want the political pain this time around! (No, I don't believe that - I'm just being facetious).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Was it ever going to be any different?

A question on EU membership still wouldn't have satisfied the question that the AG has advised must be put to the electorate in light of a constitutional requirement to ask specifically about the Fiscal Compact. Saying 'Yes to Europe' would have been quite irrelevant, not least because this is not an EU Treaty; it wouldn't have answered the question about the Fiscal Compact.

The Taoiseach is simply kicking off his party's campaign with his earlier comments.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Was there ever any other option?

Scofflaw 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/det...tion-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.

vindicated,
Scofflaw

later12

It might be a bit of fun to run a parallel question alongside the question of the Fiscal Compact by asking the public to endorse Ireland's membership of the European Union and the EMU.

At least it would give those who insist that there is a question being asked of Ireland's membership some excuse to describe this referendum as a decisive turning point on the matter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meglome

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I knew this was going to happen so I'm not remotely shocked but I still can't help but be a bit depressed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meglome

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I laughed... but now I'm kinda depressed again.

Sand

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

There is harm here - we are talking about imposing a set of fiscal handcuffs which are of very questionable benefit in and of themselves and which will actually impede the government from pursuing smart economic decisions in the future.

You're supporting the these fiscal handcuffs on the vague assumption that they will stop our dumb politicians from sinking our country any further into the mire. Theres two problems with this:

This fiscal treaty would not have done *anything* to stop the crisis we encountered in Ireland. I am very much in favour of having a smart structure for economic and fiscal policymaking in Ireland - but this isnt it. Its just a dumb answer to a question nobody asked.

Also, our dumb politicians think this treaty is a great idea. If you trust their judgement on an incredibly important fiscal and political decision which will impact this country for a generation, how come you dont trust their judgment on fiscal and politicial decisions?

There is absolutely no reason to pass this treaty as it stands. It will have zero benefit to Ireland and a lot of downsides.

Also, if the government persists with its attempts to declare this as a vote on Irelands membership of the Euro then its going to be hilarious when the first negative polls come out - logically the government would be then advising everyone to rush down to the banks to extract their Euros while they still can...

Doc Ruby

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know if the wind changes that cockwise sneer will be stuck on your face permanently?

Sand wrote: »

Also, our dumb politicians think this treaty is a great idea. If you trust their judgement on an incredibly important fiscal and political decision which will impact this country for a generation, how come you dont trust their judgment on fiscal and politicial decisions?

Because its not their judgement, to my mind it makes sense regardless of the source. I genuinely don't see too much harm in this - is it not similar to the same legislation the Germans founded their success upon?

Sand wrote: »

Also, if the government persists with its attempts to declare this as a vote on Irelands membership of the Euro

Really, I thought that was just a ridiculous rumor. Is FG that insecure in the probable outcome of the referendum that they need to make it entirely about the EU?

Riddle101

"Micheál Martin isn't the first corkman to be shot in the back by a DeValera" Haha this quote made me laugh.

View

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think you have got the idea of this "thinking outside the box" concept.

This - like all our other EU related referenda - is a metaphysical one.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason to pass this treaty as it stands. It will have zero benefit to Ireland and a lot of downsides.

I agree largely with your post, what do you mean by a lot of downsides?

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It will be worse than that. Some people on here are voting yes so that the public service unions will have their pay cut. Others are voting no for the same reason.

Niall0001

Meant to post this the other day:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0229/1224312525226.html

Tax the money hungry who got us into this mess. Those who can afford to pay us out of this mess. Renegotiate our natural resources. Hell, even Ghana were successful with renegotiating with Shell & walked out with a 51% majority share (as opposed to a piddly percentage of profit that can easily be underwritten, 'negotiated' by our muppets)!

We have far more going for us & far more support abroad than the likes of Iceland & look how they're doing!

As for comparing Michael Martin with Michael Collins: pathetic. The way I see it at present (I'm open to reassessment) a Yes vote is cowardly, pessimistic & defeatist. More borrowing is short term policy that in actuality makes us worse off down the line.

ArmaniJeanss

Niall0001 wrote: »

Meant to post this the other day:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0229/1224312525226.html

Tax the money hungry who got us into this mess. Those who can afford to pay us out of this mess. Renegotiate our natural resources. Hell, even Ghana were successful with renegotiating with Shell & walked out with a 51% majority share (as opposed to a piddly percentage of profit that can easily be underwritten, 'negotiated' by our muppets)!

We have far more going for us & far more support abroad than the likes of Iceland & look how they're doing!

As for comparing Michael Martin with Michael Collins: pathetic. The way I see it at present (I'm open to reassessment) a Yes vote is cowardly, pessimistic & defeatist. More borrowing is short term policy that in actuality makes us worse off down the line.

I wouldn't worry that you forgot to post it earlier.

To be honest even if you posted it 'the other day' it would still be a frankly bizarre mix of falsehoods, halftruths, conspiracy theories, urban legends and general pub talk.

Niall0001

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I wouldn't worry that you forgot to post it earlier.

To be honest even if you posted it 'the other day' it would still be a frankly bizarre mix of falsehoods, halftruths, conspiracy theories, urban legends and general pub talk.

Troll. Next!

200yrolecrank

Sand wrote: »

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

There is harm here - we are talking about imposing a set of fiscal handcuffs which are of very questionable benefit in and of themselves and which will actually impede the government from pursuing smart economic decisions in the future.

You're supporting the these fiscal handcuffs on the vague assumption that they will stop our dumb politicians from sinking our country any further into the mire. Theres two problems with this:

This fiscal treaty would not have done *anything* to stop the crisis we encountered in Ireland. I am very much in favour of having a smart structure for economic and fiscal policymaking in Ireland - but this isnt it. Its just a dumb answer to a question nobody asked.

Also, our dumb politicians think this treaty is a great idea. If you trust their judgement on an incredibly important fiscal and political decision which will impact this country for a generation, how come you dont trust their judgment on fiscal and politicial decisions?

There is absolutely no reason to pass this treaty as it stands. It will have zero benefit to Ireland and a lot of downsides.

Also, if the government persists with its attempts to declare this as a vote on Irelands membership of the Euro then its going to be hilarious when the first negative polls come out - logically the government would be then advising everyone to rush down to the banks to extract their Euros while they still can...

Well said,this is exactly why I am voting no and the vast majority of folk I have discussed this with are voting no also.
It won't be passes first time round and that twat Kenny and cronies are the last people I would trust on an issue for the good or bad of Ireland.

Wendero

I readily admit to not having carefully read through the whole thread, so this could have been mentioned before: Does anyone seriously believe Ireland won't get another bailout if you vote no? I firmly believe they're bluffing.

Remember this: Germany (and the rest) did not bail out Ireland because of old friendship's sake, they bailed you out because it was in their financial interest (because their banks held billions of Irish bonds). That financial interest is still there, and as long as it is, you'll be bailed out.

I wrote a post from (mainly) an economist's perspective on why Ireland should vote no: http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/03/why-ireland-should-vote-no-to-the-fiscal-compact/

(don't know if you're allowed to link to blogs from boards, otherwise just delete the link).

The Waltzing Consumer

Niall0001 wrote: »

Tax the money hungry who got us into this mess. Those who can afford to pay us out of this mess. Renegotiate our natural resources. Hell, even Ghana were successful with renegotiating with Shell & walked out with a 51% majority share (as opposed to a piddly percentage of profit that can easily be underwritten, 'negotiated' by our muppets)!

We have far more going for us & far more support abroad than the likes of Iceland & look how they're doing!

As for comparing Michael Martin with Michael Collins: pathetic. The way I see it at present (I'm open to reassessment) a Yes vote is cowardly, pessimistic & defeatist. More borrowing is short term policy that in actuality makes us worse off down the line.

Tax the money hungry who got us into this mess? Okay, so that means tax everyone who voted for FF and any person who voted for Governments in the late 80s, all of the 90s and most of 00s. So pretty much the whole electorate. Great thinking.

Ah the Shell to Sea is brought into the debate. Yes we certainly should take advice from a movement who ship in protesters to Mayo where there is virtually 0% local support and 0% national support.

Comparing us with Iceland is not useful at all. It does not show any realistic similarities in our situations and the continuing use of Iceland as an example is blinkered politics. Find me a complete open economy in the Euro with high exports, a large multinational base and a past dependency on one domestic sector (construction) which is in a similar situation. This is not Iceland.

Scofflaw

Wendero wrote: »

I readily admit to not having carefully read through the whole thread, so this could have been mentioned before: Does anyone seriously believe Ireland won't get another bailout if you vote no? I firmly believe they're bluffing.

Remember this: Germany (and the rest) did not bail out Ireland because of old friendship's sake, they bailed you out because it was in their financial interest (because their banks held billions of Irish bonds). That financial interest is still there, and as long as it is, you'll be bailed out.

Unfortunately, nobody has ever produced evidence for that, which rather reduces the value of your belief that they're bluffing. Deciding the best course for the country on pub theories seems more than a little reckless.

Wendero wrote: »

I wrote a post from (mainly) an economist's perspective on why Ireland should vote no: http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/03/why-ireland-should-vote-no-to-the-fiscal-compact/

(don't know if you're allowed to link to blogs from boards, otherwise just delete the link).

Linking is fine. Some of us will even take the time to read what's at the other end! The analysis offered is extraordinarily shallow, though. On your six points:

1. "Bond yields will go up." You really need to produce proof here. Simply claiming that bond markets "seem to simply prefer independent countries that retain as much power as possible over their economies" appears to totally ignore the huge drop in the bond prices of the euro countries after euro entry. It also completely fails to explain German bond prices, but no doubt your explanation for this will turn out to be the belief that Germany can ignore the euro rules, or even sets them for everyone else.

2. I would suggest that it might be better to find out what happened in the German economy over the last decade. Germany made huge changes to regain competitiveness - they didn't simply set the ECB rate to lower rates "to boost the German economy while overheating the Irish one", which appears to be your entire explanation, as if the ECB's interest rate was the single variable that controlled economic speed for all the euro countries.

3. "No more bailouts? They’re bluffing". Bluffing on the bailouts because they're really bailing out German banks? This is a very popular myth, but you can't base an economic analysis on a myth. I'm going to be absolutely amazed if you can produce any evidence for the claim, because Karl Whelan wasn't able to do so under challenge - the best he was able to do was to claim that with a bit of special pleading (for which again, no evidence) you could say the evidence didn't necessarily contradict the myth.

4. "There is no exit from the fiscal compact" - yes, there is. You reverse the ratification.

5. "The basic problem is not resolved." True, but the Treaty is not an attempt at a silver bullet, but a part of series of proposals - a part which happens to require a referendum.

6. "these rules are very negotiable" - also true. However, like many nay-sayers, I can't help but note that you don't seem to see any contradiction in claiming that the rules are simultaneously a straightjacket and negotiable.

Overall, a mish-mash of popular myths, errors, shallow analysis, and a couple of accurate but easy points. Something of an undergraduate effort.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gloomtastic!

Godge wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It will be worse than that. Some people on here are voting yes so that the public service unions will have their pay cut. Others are voting no for the same reason.[/Quote]

So who is right? If I want the CPA scrapped, PS pensions reduced and increments stopped which way should I vote?

Niall0001

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Tax the money hungry who got us into this mess? Okay, so that means tax everyone who voted for FF and any person who voted for Governments in the late 80s, all of the 90s and most of 00s. So pretty much the whole electorate. Great thinking.

Ah the Shell to Sea is brought into the debate. Yes we certainly should take advice from a movement who ship in protesters to Mayo where there is virtually 0% local support and 0% national support.

Comparing us with Iceland is not useful at all. It does not show any realistic similarities in our situations and the continuing use of Iceland as an example is blinkered politics. Find me a complete open economy in the Euro with high exports, a large multinational base and a past dependency on one domestic sector (construction) which is in a similar situation. This is not Iceland.

Selective editing, as you deleted the link from your quote that made my comment relevant. You appear to have your own agenda here, particularly wiith how you interpreted a comment about renegotiating a better deal with Shell as being part of the Shell To Sea brigade. A major leap & a waste of my time even typing this.

Gloomtastic!

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

So who is right? If I want the CPA scrapped, PS pensions reduced and increments stopped which way should I vote?

I would have to say 'no' if that was your primary goal. Of course the knock-on effects to a massive cut in public expenditure (welfare etc included) would put an awful lot of pressure on the domestic economy and could very well cause an economic implosion and an undoing of every positive step in the right direction we have made in the past 5 years.

later12

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Godge wrote: »

It will be worse than that. Some people on here are voting yes so that the public service unions will have their pay cut. Others are voting no for the same reason.

So who is right? If I want the CPA scrapped, PS pensions reduced and increments stopped which way should I vote?

You might as well ask who you should vote for on X Factor to have the CPA scrapped. The Fiscal Compact has absolutely nothing to do with the scrapping or the maintaining of the CPA or any other issue that does not relate directly to European economic governance.

If the Fiscal Compact is ratified in Ireland, there is no reason why the CPA should not be maintained. Its revision also remains entirely possible.

If the Fiscal Compact is rejected in Ireland, there is no reason why the CPA should not be maintained. Its revision also remains entirely possible.

There seem to be significant elements in the Yes and No camps (not least An Taoiseach) who want to make this referendum about irrelevancies.

Rejecting this treaty will not make austerity less necessary. If anything, it may necessitate intensifying Ireland's crisis programme.
On the other hand, ratifying this treaty will not safeguard our place nor role in Europe or our present crisis programme. They are already established and will continue, regardless of what the Irish electorate decide.

Gloomtastic!

later12 wrote: »

Rejecting this treaty will not make austerity less necessary. If anything, it may necessitate intensifying Ireland's crisis programme.
On the other hand, ratifying this treaty will not safeguard our place nor role in Europe or our present crisis programme. They are already established and will continue, regardless of what the Irish electorate decide.

Good. If this government had any balls then we'd have already have started an austerity programme similar to Greece's - 35% reduction in PS pensions, 25% PS pay etc. But they haven't because they have access to the bailout fund. A fund we cannot afford to pay back.

This referendum is not about the Euro or Europe, it's about access to debt. Close off access to that fund or any other money then they will have no choice but to balance the books. Yes, the country will be f*cked for a good few years but at least we will have started the rebuilding process having finally reached the bottom. At the moment we are nowhere near.