The fiscal compact for dummies.

Bipolar Joe

So, basically, I'm an idiot. All the talk of whatever the Hell this is has made me go reading the last few days to try and understand it. I still don't, and I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of other people don't either. Whenever numbers are used as regards to politics and the economy, it's either insanely high, too high to even really comprehend, or so small you wonder why it matters, like this 0.1% GDP business. So, 0.09 is OK? Where's the difference in the .01%? What the fuck does this sh!t mean? It's clear everyone has a bias either for or against, and both sides are playing the doom card. A few are saying we're screwed either way.

So what gives? In layman's terms. Use real life examples so us borderline retards can get it and make a rational decision. The papers are supposed to be a source of information, but it just looks like they're copy / pasting junk from stuff that's been said by politicians instead of making sure the public understand the situation. It's frustrating me to no end.

I'm pretty sure a GDP is how much incoming money versus how much money we're spending. Like is a store buys a bunch of onions, but those onions contain scabies, so no one is buying them, and the store ends up going out of business because they spent more than people were giving them to buy scabies ridden produce. Or something. That is just about the extent of what I've been able to glean from all of this.

chin_grin

In before tracker mortgage.

Also why did you type hell with a capital 'h'? Quite odd.

Bipolar Joe

Because it's a place, whether it exists or not. Like Hogwarts.

lividduck

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So, basically, I'm an idiot. All the talk of whatever the Hell this is has made me go reading the last few days to try and understand it. I still don't, and I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of other people don't either. Whenever numbers are used as regards to politics and the economy, it's either insanely high, too high to even really comprehend, or so small you wonder why it matters, like this 0.1% GDP business. So, 0.09 is OK? Where's the difference in the .01%? What the fuck does this sh!t mean? It's clear everyone has a bias either for or against, and both sides are playing the doom card. A few are saying we're screwed either way.

So what gives? In layman's terms. Use real life examples so us borderline retards can get it and make a rational decision. The papers are supposed to be a source of information, but it just looks like they're copy / pasting junk from stuff that's been said by politicians instead of making sure the public understand the situation. It's frustrating me to no end.

I'm pretty sure a GDP is how much incoming money versus how much money we're spending. Like is a store buys a bunch of onions, but those onions contain scabies, so no one is buying them, and the store ends up going out of business because they spent more than people were giving them to buy scabies ridden produce. Or something. That is just about the extent of what I've been able to glean from all of this.

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced within a country in a given period, minus any repatriated profits from multi-nationals. Because Ireland has so many multi nationals and because we benifit so much from transfer pricing and companys residing here soley because of our low corporation tax GNP is a better indicator of our economic progress or decline.

Bipolar Joe

lividduck wrote: »

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced within a country in a given period, minus any repatriated profits from multi-nationals. Because Ireland has so many multi nationals and because we benifit so much from transfer pricing and companys residing here soley because of our low corporation tax GNP is a better indicator of our economic progress or decline.

Right, so, I'm attempting to translate this into stupid. We have potatoes in ireland, let's say all of the potatoes are worth €500. We can sell the potatoes at €700 altogether. Now I'm confused again. FUCK.

krudler

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Because it's a place, whether it exists or not. Like Hogwarts.

Hogwarts exists its just enchanted so us normals can't see it.

Bipolar Joe

krudler wrote: »

Hogwarts exists its just enchanted so us normals can't see it.

A better example would probably be Helm's Deep, as Hogwart's is a building, but Helm's Deep is a place.

Gummy Panda

Can we not use Pepsi to describe it in layman's terms?

Bipolar Joe

OK, go for it. Pepsi is Ireland, fizzy drinks is Europe, the stuff they use to make it fizzy is money. Go.

Carbonated water (also known as club soda, soda water, sparkling water, seltzer, or fizzy water) is water into which carbon dioxide gas under pressure has been dissolved, a process that causes the water to become effervescent.
Carbonated water is the defining ingredient of carbonated soft drinks. The process of dissolving carbon dioxide in water is called carbonation.

Er, I may have misunderstood?

mawk

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Right, so, I'm attempting to translate this into stupid. We have potatoes in ireland, let's say all of the potatoes are worth €500. We can sell the potatoes at €700 altogether. Now I'm confused again. FUCK.

no its more like, if irelands total activity was one field of potatoes, worth 500e. then irelands gdp would be 500e.

but then if someone got a job as a housekeeper and cleaned 400e worth of houses a year, our gdp would then be 900e.

gdp is sort of a rough measure of how productive a country is. but its a very rough estimate as a lot of activities are hard to put cash values on.

the difference between the income and spending is called the deficit.

Bipolar Joe

mawk wrote: »

no its more like, if irelands total activity was one field of potatoes, worth 500e. then irelands gdp would be 500e.

but then if someone got a job as a housekeeper and cleaned 400e worth of houses a year, our gdp would then be 900e.

gdp is sort of a rough measure of how productive a country is. but its a very rough estimate as a lot of activities are hard to put cash values on.

the difference between the income and spending is called the deficit.

Right, so we got €900 now, but the guy who gets that money buys a €1000 car from Germany, now we have -€100, approximately. How does the fiscal compact affect this?

Celly Smunt

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Right, so we got €900 now, but the guy who gets that money buys a €1000 car from Germany, now we have -€100, approximately. How does the fiscal compact affect this?

Sweet deal on the car man.

lividduck

mawk wrote: »

no its more like, if irelands total activity was one field of potatoes, worth 500e. then irelands gdp would be 500e.

but then if someone got a job as a housekeeper and cleaned 400e worth of houses a year, our gdp would then be 900e.

gdp is sort of a rough measure of how productive a country is. but its a very rough estimate as a lot of activities are hard to put cash values on.

the difference between the income and spending is called the deficit.

Except when it is a surplus!

lividduck

mawk wrote: »

no its more like, if irelands total activity was one field of potatoes, worth 500e. then irelands gdp would be 500e.

but then if someone got a job as a housekeeper and cleaned 400e worth of houses a year, our gdp would then be 900e.

gdp is sort of a rough measure of how productive a country is. but its a very rough estimate as a lot of activities are hard to put cash values on.

the difference between the income and spending is called the deficit.

But if the cleaner was Polish and sent home half her earnings our GDP would only be €700

mawk

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Right, so we got €900 now, but the guy who gets that money buys a €1000 car from Germany, now we have -€100, approximately. How does the fiscal compact affect this?

well we need someone to sell the potatoes to, why not germany since they now have some money?

lividduck wrote: »

Except when it is a surplus!

thats a hypothetical term right?

Bipolar Joe

mawk wrote: »

well we need someone to sell the potatoes to, why not germany since they now have some money?



thats a hypothetical term right?

In this situation, we ate all the potatoes.

El Weirdo

It's the economy, stupid.

dvpower

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So what gives? In layman's terms. Use real life examples so us borderline retards can get it and make a rational decision.

You've come to the wrong place for information. The borderline retards are providing most of it around here.

Bipolar Joe

Everywhere else on Boards scares me.

mawk

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Everywhere else on Boards scares me.

online agoraphobia? makes sense

stimpson

dvpower wrote: »

You've come to the wrong place for information. The borderline retards are providing most of it around here.

Hey! Less of the borderline thank you very much.

Biggins

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So, basically, I'm an idiot. All the talk of whatever the Hell this is has made me go reading the last few days to try and understand it. I still don't, and I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of other people don't either.

http://www.thejournal.ie/the-fiscal-compact-referendum-what-are-we-voting-on-and-why-368490-Feb2012/

What are we voting on?

Twenty-five of the 27 EU members have agreed a new treaty which proposes to tighten fiscal discipline among member states. The terms of the treaty were negotiated and designed in a bid to prevent another debt crisis.
The Fiscal Compact Treaty includes what has been termed a ‘debt brake’. This legally-binding limit would cap each member’s budget deficit in relation to the size of their economy (ie below 3 per cent of GDP). Governments also have to ensure that public debt don’t exceed – or is sufficiently declining towards – 60 per cent of GDP.

Member states who breach the debt limits can be financially penalised. This penalty cannot exceed 0.1 per cent of that state’s GDP.
All 17 members of the eurozone have agreed to sign up to the agreement. (Of the EU’s 27 members, only the UK and the Czech Republic have declined to sign.)

The Taoiseach has previously said that Ireland’s receipt of bailout funds are not dependent on any such referendum being passed because the state is already in a fiscal programme for which the relevant arrangements and agreements are already in place. These agreements supersede the new fiscal compact, he said.

However, the treaty would give Ireland access to future emergency funds from the European Stability Mechanism, which is being limited to participants of the fiscal compact treaty. The €500 billion permanent bailout mechanism is planned as a replacement for the current European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) and is expected to be introduced later this year.


Why are we holding a referendum?

Under Article 46 of the Irish Constitution, any change to the Constitution requires a referendum being put to the people. The Attorney General must determine whether any proposed amendments are significant enough that they require a referendum for approval before being introduced into the Constitution.

The new treaty’s text appeared to allow for members to adopt the treaty without it being incorporated into their constitutions. In Ireland, it falls to the Attorney General to advise the government on a whether a treaty’s ratification requires a referendum because of the above Constitutional clause.

AG Marie Whelan has advised the government that it is best for Ireland to hold a referendum before ratifying the Fiscal Compact Treaty. On foot of that advice, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste announced yesterday that a referendum would be held on the issue, and that the treaty will be debated over the coming weeks.
No date has yet been set for the treaty referendum.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Drivetime yesterday, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said that this was an important referendum and it is not a case of getting it out of the way quickly. He added the cabinet had not yet discussed a timeframe for the vote.

The Referendum Commission is an independent body which explains the subject matter of referendum proposals ahead of the vote. Under the Referendum Act 1998, the Minister for the Environment will appoint a Referendum Commission to inform the public ahead of the Fiscal Compact Treaty referendum.


What are the arguments for and against?

For

In the weeks between the Fiscal Treaty agreement and the Attorney General’s advice that Ireland should hold a referendum on the issue, a number of arguments have been put forward by politicians and organisations in favour of either a yes or a no vote.

In his Dáil address yesterday, the Taoiseach said that a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum on the fiscal compact treaty would “build on the steady progress the country has made in the past year” and encourage investor confidence in Ireland.

“Putting in place this credible commitment to responsible budgeting will be key to keeping interest rates low and unlocking credit availability for investment and job creation,” Kenny said. “Lower interest rates also mean more resources for the provision essential public services.”

Meanwhile, Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore said that “what this will come down to is a vote for economic stability and economic recovery”. He also said that a ‘yes’ vote would support international confidence in the Irish economy and promote the state’s fiscal recovery.

Opposition parties have welcomed the referendum, but were divided on whether the treaty is the right move for Ireland.
Fianna Fáil’s Micheal Martin said that his party supports the treaty, but warned that it would not pass unless people were being engaged in the issues involved. “The people need to be taken on our journey through the EU,” he said.


Against

Sinn Féin has warned that the treaty could lead to further austerity measures being introduced as the government pushes to meet its debt limit under the treaty. Gerry Adams TD said yesterday that the treaty will not help to regenerate the economy but will instead “condemn the people, particularly those in lower- and middle-income brackets, to this government’s terrible austerity policy.”

Late last month, the Fiscal Advisory Council recommended against introducing the measures proposed under the treaty into the Irish Constitution, warning that they would not have the necessary flexibility if enshrined in the Constitution.

The council – established last year to offer independent analysis on whether the government is meeting budget targets or not – said that methods of enforcing the proposed fiscal limits could be strengthened while allowing for democratic control by introducing the measures in national legislation, rather than in the Constitution.

Liam Byrne

mawk wrote: »

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Right, so, I'm attempting to translate this into stupid. We have potatoes in ireland, let's say all of the potatoes are worth €500. We can sell the potatoes at €700 altogether. Now I'm confused again. FUCK.

no its more like, if irelands total activity was one field of potatoes, worth 500e. then irelands gdp would be 500e.

but then if someone got a job as a housekeeper and cleaned 400e worth of houses a year, our gdp would then be 900e.

gdp is sort of a rough measure of how productive a country is. but its a very rough estimate as a lot of activities are hard to put cash values on.

the difference between the income and spending is called the deficit.

Does it not depend on who paid the cleaner ?

If she was paid out of the potato profit, is it counted twice ?

And if not ?

lividduck

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Does it not depend on who paid the cleaner ?

If she was paid out of the potato profit, is it counted twice ?

And if not ?

No, it matters not a jot who paid her, only if the cleaner was forign and repatrited any of her earnings. GDP excludes repatriated profits, it also excludes overseas profits of Irish companies such as CRH,Kerry,Ryanair etc.

Biggins

There was a site that offered food for thought on this matter here (but its down at the mo): http://sacredbull.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/is-the-esm-treaty-the-most-outrageous-treaty-ever-drafted/

Here is a cached saved version of it: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MoehML0NLp4J:sacredbull.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/is-the-esm-treaty-the-most-outrageous-treaty-ever-drafted/+http://sacredbull.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/is-the-esm-treaty-the-most-outrageous-treaty-ever-drafted/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

A snapshot of it: http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7593/20120304160118.jpg

In text form:

Is the ESM treaty the most outrageous treaty ever drafted?

February 29, 2012 //
0
Today there was an announcement by Enda Kenny’s government that there will be a referendum on the ratification of the EU Stability Treaty. The Attorney General has advised the government that the people must be allowed to vote on whether to ratify this treaty or not. Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore made the announcement in the Dail.

This article will look at what Mr Gilmore said and compare it to the text of the treaty. Phrases such as:

Endorsing the Treaty will be another important milestone for Ireland in our road to recovery. In the weeks ahead, as the Government puts in place the necessary measures for a Referendum, that is the case we will make to the people, and I am confident that the people will respond by saying Yes to the Treaty.

Anyone following events in Ireland over the past number of years; the bank bailout and the Lisbon Treaty for example, and comparing the results of these bills being passed to the things said about them by the then government when convincing the Irish people to accept them will quickly see a striking resemblance.

‘Yes for jobs’, was a very common phrase to pass the lips of the government when campaigning for a yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty. That phrase was also very widely applied to lampposts up and down the country, on posters showing happy, smiling, young people, not one of whom had read nor intended to read the treaty document.

Not that they could have if they had wanted to. It was unreadable. All the money and all the geniuses in Europe and they couldn’t draft a readable document. Incredible. It would make a sensible person wonder was that done deliberately, so that people didn’t read it, because if it was readable and we all read it we would have voted no.

Hold on though. We DID vote no. But then Nicholas Sarkozy, a guy from France, told us NO was the wrong answer for the Irish to give in our free and fair and democratic referendum. So we voted again and this time the vote was yes. But rather than the promised jobs we instead got a devastated economy, an enormous debt, and thousands of our finest minds being forced to emigrate. The opposite of what the government promised us would happen.

The text of the ESM treaty is a lot more readable than the text of the Lisbon Treaty, so let’s see what it says.

Article 3 says:

The purpose of the ESM shall be to mobilise funding and provide financial assistance, under strict economic policy conditionality, to the benefit of ESM members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financing problems, if indispensible to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole.

So it’s to give money to countries in trouble, countries that don’t have enough money to cover their expenses. Countries like Ireland. How much money are they talking about?

Article 8 section 1 says:

The authorised capital stock shall be EUR seven hundred billion (€700,000,000,000)

That’s a lot of money. How much of this would Ireland have to pay?

Article 8 section 4 says:

The ESM Members hereby unconditionally and irrevocably undertake to provide their contribution to the authorized capital stock, in accordance with their contribution key in Annex 1. They shall meet all capital calls on a timely basis in accordance with the terms set out in this treaty.

Looking at Annex 1 we find that Ireland’s share of the capital stock is 1.5922%, which equals: EUR 11.1454 billion (€11,145,400,000)

That is a LOT of money, and the ESM Members are to sign up to unconditionally and irrevocably undertake to provide their contribution..

So if Ireland were to sign up we would have to pay. No getting out of it. What are the chances that this ESM fund would be needed and that we would be called upon to contribute? Looking at the financial state of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal the likelihood could only be called 100%. In fact the strongest economy in the EU, Germany, failed at a bond auction a few weeks ago to sell many of its bonds, an unheard of occurrence. If even the strongest economy in the EU is in a questionable financial state what does that say about the EU in general in terms of financial stability? The purpose of this treaty appears to be to raise money from countries that are already in financial difficulties to give to each other in a game of financial pass the parcel.

How are the funds gathered in the event that the ESM is called upon?

Article 9, ‘Capital Calls’, says, in section 1:

The Board of Governors may call in authorized unpaid capital at any time and set an appropriate period of time for its payment by the ESM Members.

Article 9 section 3 says:

When a potential shortfall in ESM funds is detected, the Managing Director shall make such capital call(s) as soon as possible with a view to ensuring that the ESM shall have sufficient funds to meet payments due to creditors in full on their due date. ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them by the Managing Director pursuant to this paragraph, such demand to be paid within seven (7) working days of receipt of such demand.

So by article 9 we have the situation whereby Ireland, a country with no money, can legally be ordered to pay a sum of money up to 11.1454 billion euro to the ESM within 7 days.

That’s not very good so far. What does Article 10 say?

Article 10:

The Board of Governors shall review regularly and at least every 5 years the maximum lending volume and the adequacy of the authorized capital stock of the ESM. It may decide to change the authorized capital stock and amend Article 8 and Annex 2 accordingly.

So Article 8 says that the capital stock is 700 billion euro, but then article 10 says the Board of Governors might change that, if they want to, but doesn’t set any limit whatsoever on what they might change it to. They might change it to 10 billion, which would be good, since it’s a smaller amount. Or they might change it to 700 trillion, a much bigger amount. It is, it seems, entirely up to The Board of Governors. Should we ratify the treaty we would be legally bound to pay whatever they demand.

Who are The Board of Governors?

Article 5,’Board of Governors’ says:

Each ESM Member shall appoint a Governor and an alternate Governor, revocable at any time. The Governor shall be a member of government who has responsibility for finance. The alternate governor shall have full power to act n behalf of the governor when he or she is not present.

So Irelands Governor would be appointed by Ireland’s government, one assumes, and would be someone from the Department of Finance. The Finance Minister or one of his deputies. This person would not be directly elected to the position on the ESM Board of Governors by The Irish People.

What powers or influence would Irelands Governor have in the ESM?

Article 4 section 6 says:

The voting rights of each ESM member, as exercised by its appointee or representative on the Board of Governors or Board of Directors, shall be equal to the number of shares allocated to it in the authorized capital stock of the ESM as set out in Annex 2 to this treaty.

Ireland would have 1.5922% of the capital stock so it would have 1.5922% of the voting rights in the ESM. So Ireland would be signing up to a treaty which legally binds us to pay within 7 days any sum of money demanded by the ESM, up to 11.1454 billion euro, (unless, or more likely until the Board of Governors decides to increase this) and we would have 1.5922% influence over the ESMs decisions. Decisions which would inevitably include demanding money from Ireland, a country which has no money and is in serious debt. A country which can only get more money by going into more debt.

What happens if an ESM Member doesn’t pay up on demand?

Article 22 section 2:

If an ESM Member fails to meet the required payment under a capital call made pursuant to Articles 9 (2) or (3), a revised increased capital call shall be made to all ESM Members with a view to ensuring that the ESM receives the total amount of paid-in capital needed. The Board of Governors shall decide an appropriate course of action for ensuring that the ESM Member concerned settles its debt to the ESM within a reasonable period of time and shall be entitled to require the payment of default interest on the overdue amount.

The Board of Governors will decide an appropriate course of action for ‘ensuring payment’ and interest will be charged. Interesting. What legal powers would the ESM and its Board of Governors have to ensure payment?

Article 27: Legal status of the ESM, immunities and privileges.

2. The ESM shall have full legal personality; it shall have full legal capacity:

(a) To acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property;

(b) To contract;

(c) To institute legal proceedings

3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.

The ESM can institute legal proceedings but will be immune, just because it says so, from EVERY FORM OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. Except when it decides to waive this immunity. Like when it wants to be brought to court. It would get to decide whether it wants legal proceedings brought against it or not, just because that’s written into the treaty document.

4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.

What? Anything at all which belongs to or has to do with the ESM will be immune from any form of search or seizure by any government, court or institution, under any law whatsoever?

Hold on a second here. This institution is openly setting itself up to be above any law anywhere and to have the ability to demand unlimited sums of money from sovereign countries, giving them 7 days to pay up, whilst at the same time making its assets, property and documents immune from search or seizure.

5. The archives of the ESM and in general, all documents belonging to it or held by it, shall be inviolable.

6. The premises of the ESM shall be inviolable.

8. To the extent necessary to carry out the activities provided for in this Treaty all property, funding and assets of the ESM shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.

What accountability will these people have?

Article 29: Professional secrecy

The Members or former Members of the Board of Governors and of the Board of Directors and any other persons who work or have worked for or in connection with the ESM shall not disclose information that is subject to professional secrecy. They shall be required even after their duties have ceased not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.

Article 30 Immunities of persons

1. Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, the Managing Director and staff members shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents except when and to the extent that the Board of Governors expressly waives this immunity.

So the members and former members of the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors shall be required to never say a single thing that is subject to ‘professional secrecy’, they will be immune from any legal proceedings, and their official papers and documents will be inviolable except if they themselves decide voluntarily to show them to someone.

This is possibly THE most outrageous treaty ever drafted.

This treaty will create an unaccountable financial body, run by unelected bureaucrats who will be immune from any legal proceedings.

This financial body will have the power to demand payment within 7 days of unlimited sums of money from sovereign nations and the power to instigate legal proceedings against them if they do not pay.

The sovereign nations on the other hand will have NO powers to instigate legal proceedings against the ESM because the treaty grants them total immunity from any law, any government and any institution.

And Eamon Gilmore and the Fine Gael government want The Irish to vote yes to this?

What planet are these guys on?

Judging from Mr Gilmore’s speech he, at least, is not completely on this one:

In the weeks ahead, there will be ample opportunity for debating the detail of the Treaty provisions. In the end, what this will come down to is a Vote for Economic Stability and Economic Recovery.

‘Yes for jobs!’

A yes vote for this treaty will be a vote for the economic stability and economic bonanza of someone somewhere at the receiving end of all that money but it certainly won’t provide any economic stability of any sort to Ireland.

Gilmore continued:

When this Government was elected, one year ago, Ireland was in the depths of a political, economic and financial crisis In the past twelve months, that situation has been transformed, through the hard work and sacrifice of the Irish people. We have re-established financial and political stability, and we are working all out to achieve economic recovery.

It has been transformed into a worse situation. We are in the depths of a disastrous recession and the government is in the middle of arranging a fire sale of our national assets. At the same time a national campaign to resist the government’s unjust new taxes, being levied at the people to pay the private debts of private bankers, is looking like the beginnings of the much needed Irish Revolution. By what logic can that be described as re-establishing financial and political stability and working all out to achieve economic recovery?? This is Comical Ali talk.

He went on to say:

Our reputation internationally has been transformed. Money is coming back into the country, and jobs are coming also.

Our reputation amongst the bankster class, who are raping Ireland and rubbing their hands with greedy glee at the prospect of buying our valuable natural resources and state assets at fire sale prices while we are busy repaying the debt they have managed to foist on us, has skyrocketed, for sure. They LOVE Ireland. They think we’re fantastic, because we are giving them everything we have, including our future, on a platter. Pats on the back all round for a job well done.

Our reputation amongst people who stand up to tyranny, theft, and enslavement is plumbing hitherto unseen depths. ‘Where are the Irish?’ people are asking. ‘What are they doing? Have they lost their minds? Their country is being stolen and they and their children enslaved by the bankers, and they are watching ‘A Voice for Ireland’.’

Mr Gilmore then said:

Ratifying the Treaty will also provide Ireland with access to emergency funds in the future, if we need them, through the new European Stability Mechanism. Our intention is to emerge from the EU/IMF Programme without having to resort to the ESM.

That’s a very good intention, but he doesn’t mention the reverse situation at all and therein lays the deception of Mr Gilmore. Borrowing money from the ESM is not something we want. But getting a demand for payment of an unlimited sum of money from the ESM, with 7 days to pay, is something we most definitely do not want. And signing up to a treaty that will make that a legally enforceable and likely scenario would be an act so stupid it defies description. It would be the final, very last, nail in the coffin of Ireland.

Facts have to be faced here. The EU, IMF, ECB are criminal institutions, and the high level banker class that run them are criminals who need to go to jail. They are working to enslave the countries of Europe via debt.

The great American patriot John Adams said:

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.

Ireland is already in far too much debt. The solution to debt is never more debt. Borrowing ones way out of debt, or signing up to a treaty that allows unaccountable crooks to make unlimited financial demands of you, when you have no money and are in unpayable debt, is financial suicide.

Mr Gilmore finished his speech by saying the following:

Endorsing the Treaty will be another important milestone for Ireland in our road to recovery. In the weeks ahead, as the Government puts in place the necessary measures for a Referendum, that is the case we will make to the people, and I am confident that the people will respond by saying Yes to the Treaty.

Mr Gilmore’s confidence is ill figured. The campaign against the household charge and water taxes is looking likely to result in an embarrassing defeat for the government, as just 8% of the 1.8 million households have so far registered for the charge and meetings and rallies are growing all over the country. The meetings are serving to educate The Irish about the facts of the taxes, facts not supplied by the media or the government.

In the same way, it is incumbent on us all now to educate those around us on the facts of this treaty, and to ensure that the result of the referendum is a resounding NO!

The bankster class are engaged in an all-out push to strip Ireland of everything of value and reduce the proud Irish race to a nation of debt-slaves. They have nearly succeeded. How can we pay any demand for money from the ESM when we are borrowing to pay our welfare payments and the government is planning to sell our water infrastructure, electricity infrastructure, and our forests to service the debts we already have? It’s the most ridiculous suggestion ever. There’s no way we can pay anyone any money. If we get a demand we’ll just get in more debt, and the debt will incur interest, making it bigger again.

I post the above not in agreement or disagreement - just as further material that might not have been considered by some.

pancakes rule

The EU treaty will force member states to stick to balanced budgets from now on with harsher rules to drive expenditure down. By signing this treaty, the government will effectively commit itself to introducing €6bil in tax increases and spending cuts. This is on top of the €8.6 bil in spending cuts and tax increases over the next three years. Not only will we be signing up for lots of extra austerity, but the treaty is making keynsian and socialist policies illegal and will tie the hands of any future government to the same measures.
I we fail to meet the target of .1% we'll be fined by the european court of justice which will send us into an ongoing debt spiral.
Article 9 says to cut wages and there is a significant proposal to shift budgetary power from elected governments to the unelected european commission and european council.
Either way, we're ****ed. Basically. BUT, if we vote against the treaty, we retain our democratic power which we will ****ing want.
It's an austerity treaty, but it's also a treaty to give the elite more power straight out of our hands.

pancakes rule

These basically describe what we'll be looking at come voting day

mackg

pancakes rule wrote: »

These basically describe what we'll be looking at come voting day

If they're trying to get it passed they could have definitely worded it better.

Dr Expired

Listen Joe don't be worrying yourself with all this nonsense. 'They' have no intention of letting you know the true implications of voting yes for this treaty. If not sure about something then don't do it. Vote no.

Millicent

Dr Expired wrote: »

Listen Joe don't be worrying yourself with all this nonsense. 'They' have no intention of letting you know the true implications of voting yes for this treaty. If not sure about something then don't do it. Vote no.

Eh? If not sure of something, don't vote.

humanji

pancakes rule wrote: »

These basically describe what we'll be looking at come voting day

When you have to resort to scare tactics, you may want to rethink whether you're on the right side.

pancakes rule

Millicent wrote: »

Eh? If not sure of something, don't vote.

If he doesn't vote the treaty may be passed with serious consequences of which he wasn't aware.

The most important fact about the economy to remember is the fact that "money" is an illusion, it only has "value" because bankers & politicians say so! We never own that money, the owners name is on it, we have temporary possession of it and we are charged interest for that privilege!

Money is nothing without faith, it is the job of politicians to ensure that we remain faithful to the god of money that the bankers have bestowed their divine Euro notes upon us after we've sweated our balls off working to earn it only for them to take them away for the purpose of taxes and to ensure that they pass through the bank as many times as possible.

Every time a Euro pass through the bank the banker gets interest on it, a bit like passing "GO" on the monopoly board!

dvpower

pancakes rule wrote: »

If he doesn't vote the treaty may be passed with serious consequences of which he wasn't aware.

If he votes No, the the treaty may not be passed with serious consequences of which he wasn't aware.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

Every time a Euro pass through the bank the banker gets interest on it, a bit like passing "GO" on the monopoly board!

But no matter because apparently "money" is an illusion.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

But no matter because apparently "money" is an illusion.

It is, but like devout cult followers, we're all suckered into working for the bankers to ensure that it maintains it's status!

James Forde

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Can we not use Pepsi to describe it in layman's terms?

Partial credit!

Bipolar Joe

dvpower wrote: »

If he votes No, the the treaty may not be passed with serious consequences of which he wasn't aware.

Thanks, this is exactly my point. I WANT to vote, but this sh!t is never easy to understand. I want things to be good, and as an Irish dude I want to at the least give it a shot. Things got fucked up before I even had the opportunity to have a say (Thanks for that, by the way), now I can be a proper grown up and all the junk.

pickarooney

Is it basically the Fifa Fair Play policy for countries?

stimpson

dvpower wrote: »

If he votes No, the the treaty may not be passed with serious consequences of which he wasn't aware.

If he votes no they'll just keep asking until he says yes. That's how democracy works (apparently).

pancakes rule

humanji wrote: »

When you have to resort to scare tactics, you may want to rethink whether you're on the right side.

They were meant in a more satirical fashion. The Government are the ones who are really using scare tactics, almost anyone would know that that won't be written on the ballot papers, where as the scare tactics used on the Yes side are put in such a way that many will believe it to be the truth because of all the right wing media.

By definition, both sides are using scare tactics; you just have to decide what you're more scared of.

humanji

Or ignore both sides and read the treaty.