Varadkar to Irish Electorate: Vote Yes or else...

lividduck

dvpower wrote: »

Access to the ESM tells investors that there is a safety net in place should a country run in to problems repaying their debt - they can go to the ESM to get the money.
Without the ESM, there is more uncertainty - more uncertainty means higher rates, higher rates means less investment.

You are correct but you will be arguing against those who will be once again claiming that if we vote yes our children will be conscripted into a European army, or all our women will be forced to have abortions, or we will be be forced to speak german, you know how it goes..:pac:

Mark200

RachaelVO wrote: »

In honesty Irish SOPA has a bigger chance of deterring investment that than not joining the fiscal union.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

paddyandy

O.P. or VOTE NO OR ELSE .Both sides with the same threat .
We are a tiny population we can't stand on our own we need the bailouts .What alternative realistically is there ?

nice_very

bring it Leo, I will be voting NO.. if you fight me and you win I will vote yes (this is an open invitation to Leo) or else what biach?

nice_very

paddyandy wrote: »

O.P. or VOTE NO OR ELSE .Both sides with the same threat .
We are a tiny population we can't stand on our own we need the bailouts .What alternative realistically is there ?

we could be a totally self sufficient country IF our govt had the balls to tell europe to F.O. look at our agriculture, anything else we need we can produce.. sure it would be back to a "barter system" maybe for a while, but I think we have enough allies to make it through... better than wasting money throwing it into a black hole...

dvpower

nice_very wrote: »

we could be a totally self sufficient country IF our govt had the balls to tell europe to F.O. look at our agriculture...

If we tell Europe to F.O. would that include telling them to stop making CAP payments to our agriculture sector or to stop giving our agriculture sector access to their markets?

RachaelVO

Mark200 wrote: »

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Jobs deary, jobs!!!!!

One of the biggest drains on our exchequer is unemployment! One area in which we are strongest is in IT, programming etc;

SOPA is gonna put a whole lotta tech companies off investing.

Did I explain that in term ya get?

martinosullivan

44leto wrote: »

How is it scaremongering, this is probably true, why would the ECB provide the rest of the rescue package if we are in danger of misbehaving again in the future.

If I was the ECB I certainly would with hold the funds till the new treaty became law here.

The ECB will bail out our banks, if they don’t the German banks will feel the loss.

A bailout is actually a bad thing for the people of Ireland, as it will mean that the Irish people are forced to pay for the reckless activity of the banks.

We paid higher prices for houses, than we should have. This lead to a property bubble crash, this lead to a banking crash and people are expected to pay for the mistakes of an elite who are getting richer.

http://www.voteno.ie

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

Access to the ESM tells investors that there is a safety net in place should a country run in to problems repaying their debt - they can go to the ESM to get the money.
Without the ESM, there is more uncertainty - more uncertainty means higher rates, higher rates means less investment.

Or - the desperation of this government to bully the electorate into voting yes, could tell investors that we are not in a postion to repay the debt, that we have no plan B, except access to more debt - on top of what we can't repay now.

Biggins

Remember a long, long time ago – yes, as far back as January this year when Taoiseach Enda Kenny stated charges that Ireland will NOT need a second European Union/International Monetary Fund bailout? (LINK)

In order to use more stronger persuasion – now he and his cronies have dug out the scare tactics (again!) and now are say that we might need a second bailout – just so they can get a “Yes” vote!

We are in a programme, the programme lasts for the next two years. We are meeting all of the targets and all of our commitments,” Mr Kenny said, adding immediately afterwards, “I do not share the view at all in regard to a second bailout.”

(Link)

…And that was just in January!

February: No bailout will be needed now?
March: No bailout will be needed now?
April: No bailout will be needed now?

But hang on a minute – what has Eammon Gilmore to say just recently at the end of April? Well according to the Wall Street Journal which we can take with some credibility:

Irish Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore, leader of Ireland’s junior coalition party, said Monday that the country will not need a second bailout with the European Union, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank, as it builds trust with financial markets by meeting the targets of its existing program.

Gilmore was talking to reporters as he launched his Labour Party’s campaign to persuade voters to support the EU fiscal compact in a public referendum on May 31

(LINK)

Suddenly a poll indicates that the "No" side has gained a few points...

“Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore warns of second troika bailout…” (RTE News!)

It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious! How can Enda Kenny, Eammon Gilmore and co sleep at night when they are being so two-faced in so short a time?

…But let us not be un-clear about how our top man thinks…

“Taoiseach adamant Ireland will not need second bailout”

(Link)

OR

Taoiseach Enda Kenny rules out second Irish bailout but admits challenges ahead.

Link.

However as more and more people are seeing through their latest political and economic u-turn to suit themselves – when they do actually talk about things they only want to – their public version of the future changes yet again!

Pure blatant scare tactics in order to get their way!

Don't think so?
Well lets hear from Fine Gael themselves!

In the wake of a top secret FG party meeting, astonished TDs and senators told the Sunday Independent they had been informed by the party’s referendum director, Simon Coveney, that “the Government would prefer to win the referendum by being nice but if necessary we will change tack”.

LINK.

Says it all really!

John.Icy

Zebra3 wrote: »

You seem to have problems grasping what certain other words mean as you are under the impression that the IMF and ECB are giving us money. :rolleyes:

lol.

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

Pure blatant scare tactics in order to get their way!

All of those reassurances that we wouldn't need a second bailout were scare tactics?

You're easily scared.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Or - the desperation of this government to bully the electorate into voting yes, could tell investors that we are not in a postion to repay the debt, that we have no plan B, except access to more debt - on top of what we can't repay now.

I'd have thought that having access to more debt would be music to the ears of bond market investors, given that bonds need to be rolled over at some point.

SafeSurfer

Funds will be made available to Ireland as long as those funds continue to be used to repay the European banks who stand to lose billions should Ireland not have access to funds to make those repayments.

Until the need for a referendum on the issue became clear, the government were telling us that the austerity that they imposed would allow us to return to the markets at the end of 2013. Now they have changed tack completely.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

I'd have thought that having access to more debt would be music to the ears of bond market investors, given that bonds need to be rolled over at some point.

And therein lies my problem. I don't disagree with the principal of the treaty - but remember the rules are already there. I simply cannot understand why this is the governments only apparant reason for signing this treaty.

Maybe I am wrong, but Ireland never broke these rules in the first place - now where we got the money (housing) is a different issue - but we did spend within our means.

We've agreed to shoulder the debt - that's in the past now - but in voting yes we are then expected to meet targets, in a given timeframe, which we are not in a postion to do.

dvpower

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Until the need for a referendum on the issue became clear, the government were telling us that the austerity that they imposed would allow us to return to the markets at the end of 2013. Now they have changed tack completely.

Obviously the plan (of the Government and the troika) was and remains that we would return to the bond markets next year, otherwise the bailout would have been designed with a longer term.

Its still not an unreasonable plan. Even with the turmoil with Greece, Irish bond yields are still lower now than they were at the start of the year and half of what they were at the peak. I don't know where you get the idea that the government have 'changed tack completely'.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

And therein lies my problem. I don't disagree with the principal of the treaty - but remember the rules are already there. I simply cannot understand why this is the governments only apparant reason for signing this treaty.

Having access to a bailout fund is a pretty important reason to sign the treaty goven that we are currently in receipt of a bailout and having the backstop of a bailout fund decreases the likelihood of us requiring access to it.

daltonmd wrote: »

Maybe I am wrong, but Ireland never broke these rules in the first place - now where we got the money (housing) is a different issue - but we did spend within our means.

We may not have broken the rules, but we most certainly didn't spend within our means.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

Having access to a bailout fund is a pretty important reason to sign the treaty goven that we are currently in receipt of a bailout and having the backstop of a bailout fund decreases the likelihood of us requiring access to it.

Point number one: Given that we are already in receipt of a bailout fund. If there was no treaty for example, why would we be refused access to another bailout?

dvpower wrote: »

We may not have broken the rules, but we most certainly didn't spend within our means.

We did - the issue of where our means originated from is a different argument. So on to point number two (not presuming anything, just trying to get as much info as possible) - what if there was no clause regarding access attached to a second bailout - how could this government sell this to us? I'm still on the fence and with all that is going on (possible amendments, implementation of the CCCT and so on).

Thanks.

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

All of those reassurances that we wouldn't need a second bailout were scare tactics?

You're easily scared.

Did I say I WAS scared?
Please say where!

Its just the pointing out of the latest repeated tactic of a disreputable bunch of wasters.

Just more antics of two-faced artists and liars.
Of course also supported sadly by some people that are idiots that are stupid to fall for their crap and spin.

Their latest antics:
* Cowering to the The Roman Church - again!
* They don't have a plan! (Or a clue!)
* More double standards!
* Breaking rules yet again!
* Silent when they don't want to talk - again!
* Introducing Sharia law into the Irish work culture!
* “the Government would prefer to win the referendum by being nice but if necessary we will change tack”.

Feel free anyone to defend these fools!
Sadly there is always at least one.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

Obviously the plan (of the Government and the troika) was and remains that we would return to the bond markets next year, otherwise the bailout would have been designed with a longer term.

Its still not an unreasonable plan. Even with the turmoil with Greece, Irish bond yields are still lower now than they were at the start of the year and half of what they were at the peak. I don't know where you get the idea that the government have 'changed tack completely'.

We will not be in a position to return to the bond markets next year, with respect, yield prices while we are not in the market are meaningless.

We have three issues that in my opinion, investors are worried about.

One: Level of mortgage losses still on the banks balance sheets.
Two: We have not dealt with number one.
Three: We are in a bailout programme that has not worked.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Point number one: Given that we are already in receipt of a bailout fund. If there was no treaty for example, why would we be refused access to another bailout?

The treaty establishes the entry rules for the ESM, so where does the new bailout come from without the treaty? The EFSF was a stopgap measure and we are already way over quota at the IMF.

It may be that the EU would cobble sometihng together for a new bailout, but it would likely mean individual European governments having to put their hands in their pockets again and get the agreement of their parliaments for it. Its unlikely that any deal we would get in these circumstances would be on better terms than we would get from the ESM.

daltonmd wrote: »

We did - the issue of where our means originated from is a different argument.

We lived on short term bubble property tax receipts, which were never sustainable. We didn't have the means, it was just a bubble.

daltonmd wrote: »

So on to point number two (not presuming anything, just trying to get as much info as possible) - what if there was no clause regarding access attached to a second bailout - how could this government sell this to us? I'm still on the fence and with all that is going on (possible amendments, implementation of the CCCT and so on).

Thanks.

If there was no clause linking ratification to ESM access then I think the government would have real difficulty getting it through.

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

Did I say I WAS scared?
Please say where!

Its just the pointing out of the latest repeated tactic of a disreputable bunch of wasters.

Just more antics of two-faced artists and liars.
Of course also supported sadly by some people that are idiots that are stupid to fall for their crap and spin.

Their latest antics:
* Cowering to the The Roman Church - again!
* They don't have a plan! (Or a clue!)
* More double standards!
* Breaking rules yet again!
* Silent when they don't want to talk - again!
* Introducing Sharia law into the Irish work culture!
* “the Government would prefer to win the referendum by being nice but if necessary we will change tack”.

Feel free anyone to defend these fools!
Sadly there is always at least one.

Don't you already have a blog Biggins?

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

The treaty establishes the entry rules for the ESM, so where does the new bailout come from without the treaty? The EFSF was a stopgap measure and we are already way over quota at the IMF.

Was that not the add on?

dvpower wrote: »

It may be that the EU would cobble sometihng together for a new bailout, but it would likely mean individual European governments having to put their hands in their pockets again and get the agreement of their parliaments for it. Its unlikely that any deal we would get in these circumstances would be on better terms than we would get from the ESM.

And you think they'll cobble together to keep is in the lifestyle we're accustomed to? I'm not sure.

dvpower wrote: »

We lived on short term bubble property tax receipts, which were never sustainable. We didn't have the means, it was just a bubble.

But they were the means at the time and we were actually used as a positive example in Europe. You're talking in hindsight and that doesn't apply to the fact that we spent within our means, while other countries did not.

dvpower wrote: »

If there was no clause linking ratification to ESM access then I think the government would have real difficulty getting it through.

Let me draw you out on that. Why?

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

Don't you already have a blog Biggins?

*sigh*

donegal_road

Varadkar was in the media spotlight for a while, in the run up to the elections. He seemed a pleasant enough, happy go lucky type of guy, ready to do his best for his constituents. (which no doubt he has). But, one year later and his tone has changed to that of a robot. Fatigued by the onslaught of negativity and anger by the public as he is sent once again, by Inda and co. to deliver more bad news to the nation.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

We will not be in a position to return to the bond markets next year, with respect, yield prices while we are not in the market are meaningless.

If the yield prices are meaningless, what measure would you use? Maybe the fact that we did go to the markets early this year and sucessfully extend the terms on some of our bonds.

daltonmd wrote: »

We have three issues that in my opinion, investors are worried about.

One: Level of mortgage losses still on the banks balance sheets.
Two: We have not dealt with number one.
Three: We are in a bailout programme that has not worked.

We still have over a year to run on the bailout program, but so far, its sponsors have been happy with our progress at every quarterly review. It may not work, but its a bit premature to say that it hasn't worked.
Compared to the alternative - no bailout at all - I'd say it has worked fairly well.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

If the yield prices are meaningless, what measure would you use? Maybe the fact that we did go to the markets early this year and sucessfully extend the terms on some of our bonds.

This is a great point - because at that stage a second bailout was not on the cards. Add to that, the bonds were swapped and need to be repaid in 2015. ???

dvpower wrote: »

We still have over a year to run on the bailout program, but so far, its sponsors have been happy with our progress at every quarterly review. It may not work, but its a bit premature to say that it hasn't worked.
Compared to the alternative - no bailout at all - I'd say it has worked fairly well.

If we need a second bailout and if this is the only viable reason that the Goverment can come up with so far - then it's clear, to me anyway, that it hasn't worked.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Was that not the add on?

Not sure I understand?

daltonmd wrote: »

And you think they'll cobble together to keep is in the lifestyle we're accustomed to? I'm not sure.

They might cobble together something, but not something we would like. We might look into the future a bit by looking towards Greece. Maybe individual EU governments would start tacking on their own conditions - maybe France would put Corporation Tax back on the table. Who knows.

daltonmd wrote: »

But they were the means at the time and we were actually used as a positive example in Europe. You're talking in hindsight and that doesn't apply to the fact that we spent within our means, while other countries did not.

How wrong we (and they) all were.

daltonmd wrote: »

Let me draw you out on that. Why?

Because people don't like being told how to run their affairs from Europe. It would be seen as all stick and no carrot.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

This is a great point - because at that stage a second bailout was not on the cards. Add to that, the bonds were swapped and need to be repaid in 2015. ???

A second bailout was as much on the cards then as it is now. The main reason it is being discussed now is that we are discussing the bailout fund.
I know you feel that our bond yields are meaningless, but they were at around the same level then as they are today.

daltonmd wrote: »

If we need a second bailout and if this is the only viable reason that the Goverment can come up with so far - then it's clear, to me anyway, that it hasn't worked.

The government haven't said that we need another bailout. It is their plan to reenter the bond markets.
However, without the backstop of a bailout fund, the likelihood of us needing another bailout is increased.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

Not sure I understand?


The treaty establishes the entry rules for the ESM,

Teh entry requirements, as far as I know, did not extend to those EU countries who ratified the treaty. This was added on.

dvpower wrote: »

They might cobble together something, but not something we would like. We might look into the future a bit by looking towards Greece. Maybe individual EU governments would start tacking on their own conditions - maybe France would put Corporation Tax back on the table. Who knows.

The problems with Greece are as a result of Austerity - we really do have to differentiate between the Greek goverments and the Greek people.

dvpower wrote: »

How wrong we (and they) all were.

I agree - but we did not break the rules.

dvpower wrote: »

Because people don't like being told how to run their affairs from Europe. It would be seen as all stick and no carrot.

Is this an admission then that a YES vote means more European control into our domestic affairs? Including tax harmonisation and a change in corporate Tax?

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

A second bailout was as much on the cards then as it is now. The main reason it is being discussed now is that we are discussing the bailout fund.
I know you feel that our bond yields are meaningless, but they were at around the same level then as they are today..

Not according to the goverment. And our yields have changed.

dvpower wrote: »

The government haven't said that we need another bailout. It is their plan to reenter the bond markets.
However, without the backstop of a bailout fund, the likelihood of us needing another bailout is increased.

They have as much as said so using this treaty. The first comment I heard, when this referendum was announced, was by Leo Varadker and the first thing he said was "we need to secure funding in the event of a second bailout"..

No other reason, and again DV, not to be pernickity - but please tell me a plus from voting yes - leaving out the second bailout?

K-9

daltonmd wrote: »

Point number one: Given that we are already in receipt of a bailout fund. If there was no treaty for example, why would we be refused access to another bailout?

We probably wouldn't as the EU would set up a fund. We have a Treaty though and this is[/b] the fund, a condition of which is signing the Treaty.

Biggins wrote: »

* Introducing Sharia law into the Irish work culture!

Feel free anyone to defend these fools!
Sadly there is always at least one.

Wtf is that Biggins?

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Teh entry requirements, as far as I know, did not extend to those EU countries who ratified the treaty. This was added on.

I wasn't aware of that.

daltonmd wrote: »

The problems with Greece are as a result of Austerity - we really do have to differentiate between the Greek goverments and the Greek people.

I wouldn't know where to begin with my disagreement with that assesment of Greece's problems.

daltonmd wrote: »

I agree - but we did not break the rules.

No we didn't. We lived beyond our means but we didn't break the rules.

daltonmd wrote: »

Is this an admission then that a YES vote means more European control into our domestic affairs? Including tax harmonisation and a change in corporate Tax?

Why the hell are you introducing the idea of the EU having control over Corporation Tax? I never gave any indication that I was 'admitting' that.

As I understand it, we are already committed to the rules that we are now putting into national legislation, so I don't think we giving the EU substantially more control, but it would be a common perception that we are.

daltonmd wrote: »

Not according to the goverment. And our yields have changed.

The government are not saying that we will need another bailout. It is intended to reenter the bond markets and not avail of another bailout.

And our yields did change. They came down after that bond extension and they are now back up to where they were at the time of the bond extension.

daltonmd wrote: »

They have as much as said so using this treaty. The first comment I heard, when this referendum was announced, was by Leo Varadker and the first thing he said was "we need to secure funding in the event of a second bailout"..

In the event of another bailout we would need to secure funding - that is a simple truism. But is isn't the intention to get another bailout.

daltonmd wrote: »

No other reason, and again DV, not to be pernickity - but please tell me a plus from voting yes - leaving out the second bailout?

Access to the ESM is the main reason for Ireland, because access to it reduces the chance of us needing a bailout.

If Europe wasn't in a financial crisis then I would probably be against it (or at least I wouldn't be for it), because I don't think it really does much that isn't already there.
In the context of the financial crisis, the strengthening of the rules, or more accurately, strengthening the enforcement of the rules is worthwhile if it can bring some bit of stabilty.

dvpower

K-9 wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

* Introducing Sharia law into the Irish work culture!
Feel free anyone to defend these fools!
Sadly there is always at least one.

Wtf is that Biggins?

Apparently, we've been trying for a while now to lay the groundwork to attract Islamic funds administration to Ireland.

That, and Biggins has a blog to maintain.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that.

The clause was put in after the treaty. It states that the only countries who can appy are those who ratified the treaty - this was not there prior.

dvpower wrote: »

I wouldn't know where to begin with my disagreement with that assesment of Greece's problems.

I'm distinguishing the Greek people from the goverments who lied.

dvpower wrote: »

No we didn't. We lived beyond our means but we didn't break the rules.

Exactly - we lived within our means. Again, those means are the basis of our problems but we did not break the rules as others did.

dvpower wrote: »

Why the hell are you introducing the idea of the EU having control over Corporation Tax? I never gave any indication that I was 'admitting' that.

Sorry, I didn't mean that you indicated it - but the treaty leaves us open to it.

dvpower wrote: »

As I understand it, we are already committed to the rules that we are now putting into national legislation, so I don't think we giving the EU substantially more control, but it would be a common perception that we are.

We are committed to them - but the addition of the shotgun clause changed that.

dvpower wrote: »

The government are not saying that we will need another bailout. It is intended to reenter the bond markets and not avail of another bailout.

I disagree - that is all they have been saying. We will not re-enter the bond markets - if we do then I will stand corrected.

dvpower wrote: »

And our yields did change. They came down after that bond extension and they are now back up to where they were at the time of the bond extension.

Why?

dvpower wrote: »

In the event of another bailout we would need to secure funding - that is a simple truism. But is isn't the intention to get another bailout.

We won't secure funding unless we sort out what needs to be sorted - a second bailout is the last thing we need.

dvpower wrote: »

Access to the ESM is the main reason for Ireland, because access to it reduces the chance of us needing a bailout.

I disagree again, access to it means we need it and we do.

dvpower wrote: »

If Europe wasn't in a financial crisis then I would probably be against it (or at least I wouldn't be for it), because I don't think it really does much that isn't already there.
In the context of the financial crisis, the strengthening of the rules, or more accurately, strengthening the enforcement of the rules is worthwhile if it can bring some bit of stabilty.

But here's the thing. The rules are already there, and haec been for years - we didn't break them, but by taking on the banking debt and not sorting out our issues - then we'll never meet them in the timeframe alloted.

Look it's my interpretation of the whole deal and I do not like it. It looks desperate. It screams "No plan B". If this goverment were a true goverment then they would have and offer an alternative - they haven't.

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

Apparently, we've been trying for a while now to lay the groundwork to attract Islamic funds administration to Ireland.

That is correct so we have adopted Sharia Law principles and brought them into our banking system.
What's a bit of Sharia Law, sure we could do with a dollop of it on the side!

Islamic finance means that banking and financial products compliant with Sharia law.

…The basic Islamic teaching is that paying interest on loans or overdrafts, or receiving interest on savings, is forbidden. It also rules out investing in unethical areas like gambling, weapons, alcohol, and adult entertainment.

* http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-is-becoming-a-hub-for-islamic-finance-but-what-exactly-is-it-447948-May2012/
* http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=87719

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

The clause was put in after the treaty. It states that the only countries who can appy are those who ratified the treaty - this was not there prior.

Are you saying it was put in after the treaty was signed? I'd like to see evidence for that.
Or are you saying it was introduced late in the negotiations? That would be something different entirely.

daltonmd wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean that you indicated it - but the treaty leaves us open to it.

The treaty does not leave it open to change Irish tax policy. A change in our Corporation Tax rate for example requires our agreement and a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base requires all member states to agree i.e. we have a veto. There is nothing in this treaty that changes that.

daltonmd wrote: »

I disagree - that is all they have been saying. We will not re-enter the bond markets - if we do then I will stand corrected.

Can you point me to a government spokesperson saying that 'we will need another bailout'?

daltonmd wrote: »

Why?

Our yields have changed recently because of uncertainty in Greece (and Spain and Italy) imo.
I predict that after the treaty referendum is passed here our bond yields will narrow.

daltonmd wrote: »

We won't secure funding unless we sort out what needs to be sorted - a second bailout is the last thing we need.

Agreed. The last thing we need is to have to get another bailout.
But worse than needing another bailout is needing one and not having access to the ESM.

daltonmd wrote: »

I disagree again, access to it means we need it and we do.

That doesn't make sense. I have access to all sorts of services that I don't need and hope I never need.

daltonmd wrote: »

If this goverment were a true goverment then they would have and offer an alternative - they haven't.

What alternative should the government be offering and why? They have their policy.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Teh entry requirements, as far as I know, did not extend to those EU countries who ratified the treaty. This was added on.

daltonmd wrote: »

The clause was put in after the treaty. It states that the only countries who can appy are those who ratified the treaty - this was not there prior.

The bit that specifies access rules to the ESM is this:

STRESSING the importance of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism as an element of the global strategy to strengthen the economic and monetary union and POINTING OUT that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2) of this Treaty has expired, on compliance with the requirements of that Article;

This text was finalised on 31 Jan 2012. The treaty was signed on 02 March 2012.

4 countries have ratified it so far:
Greece on 28 March 2012
Poland on 11 May 2012
Portugal on 13 April 2012
Slovenia on 19 April 2012

So what exactly was added in after the treaty?

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

Are you saying it was put in after the treaty was signed? I'd like to see evidence for that.
Or are you saying it was introduced late in the negotiations? That would be something different entirely.

"The original ESM treaty signed on 11 July 2011 did not contain the relevant clause. Then on 2 February 2012, a revised ESM treaty was signed which included the key clause,” said Mr Murphy.
The clause states: It is acknowledged and agreed that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the ESM will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of the [fiscal treaty].”
Mr Murphy said the Government had signed the clause with no public debate about its implications and accused it of secretly conniving with the EU establishment.
The result, he said, was a “blackmail clause blocking funds to any member state not ratifying the fiscal treaty”. He also argued that the Government could have blocked the addition of the clause, as such an amendment would have required unanimous agreement from 27 EU member states.
“The Government must answer why it agreed to the insertion of this clause? Was it precisely in order to make a weapon to be used to try to deliver a Yes vote on the austerity treaty? I am calling on the Taoiseach to make a statement as a matter of urgency on this issue,” said Mr Murphy.
However, the Government spokesman denied there was anything secretive or underhand about the change to the stability mechanism treaty.
“A very strong and logical consensus was reached that access to the rescue funds [through the ESM facility] was contingent on a commitment to fiscal responsibility,” said the spokesman.
He said that the signing of the additional clause to the treaty in February was “a matter of public record”."[/QUOTE]


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0302/1224312634976.html

dvpower wrote: »

The treaty does not leave it open to change Irish tax policy. A change in our Corporation Tax rate for example requires our agreement and a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base requires all member states to agree i.e. we have a veto. There is nothing in this treaty that changes that.

"Mr. Hollande is also an advocate of tax harmonisation which would mean changes to the closely-guarded low Irish corporate tax rate."

http://www.newstalk.ie//2012/news/taoiseach-tanaiste-say-corporation-tax-not-changeable/
And this from the man who may impose amendments AFTER we vote on the treaty.

dvpower wrote: »

Can you point me to a government spokesperson saying that 'we will need another bailout'?

Please?

dvpower wrote: »

Our yields have changed recently because of uncertainty in Greece (and Spain and Italy) imo.
I predict that after the treaty referendum is passed here our bond yields will narrow.

And if it's not?

dvpower wrote: »

Agreed. The last thing we need is to have to get another bailout.
But worse than needing another bailout is needing one and not having access to the ESM.

I don't agree. Worse is going into this needing one and making no alternative plan. Having no alternatie plan signals no growth and no prospect of growth.

dvpower wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. I have access to all sorts of services that I don't need and hope I never need.

So then again, tell me, apart from access to the fund, why is this good for Ireland?

dvpower wrote: »

What alternative should the government be offering and why? They have their policy.

That is not for me to say - that's their job, not mine.

K-9

The Irish Government doesn't have any real power or say about another bailout other than reducing the deficit as much as it can. If the market rates are 7.5% in 2 years time it would be very difficult to borrow at those rates, higher than what actually forced us to get the bailout!

daltonmd

K-9 wrote: »

The Irish Government doesn't have any real power or say about another bailout other than reducing the deficit as much as it can. If the market rates are 7.5% in 2 years time it would be very difficult to borrow at those rates, higher than what actually forced us to get the bailout!

And the reasons behind that reason has still not been properly addressed. Banking debt,huge personal debt, huge holes in the banks (mortgage debt), high unemployment, high wage in the PS/SW/Pensions, no growth and more importantly - no sign of growth.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

"The original ESM treaty signed on 11 July 2011 did not contain the relevant clause. Then on 2 February 2012, a revised ESM treaty was signed which included the key clause,” said Mr Murphy.

The ESM treaty is an entirely different treaty to the treaty we are being asked to vote on.
I think you are mixing your treaties up.

daltonmd wrote: »

"Mr. Hollande is also an advocate of tax harmonisation which would mean changes to the closely-guarded low Irish corporate tax rate."

http://www.newstalk.ie//2012/news/taoiseach-tanaiste-say-corporation-tax-not-changeable/
And this from the man who may impose amendments AFTER we vote on the treaty.

Nobody can change the treaty post hoc.
The treaty we are voting on is the one signed on 02 March 2012.
In the event of a change to the treaty, it would be a different treaty and would require a new ratification.

And Hollande may be an advocate of tax harmonisation, but he does not have the power to harmonise tax. That is clear.

daltonmd wrote: »

Please?

So its a secret government policy to seek a new bailout - one that only certain people on the No side of the debate are privy to?

daltonmd wrote: »

I don't agree. Worse is going into this needing one and making no alternative plan. Having no alternatie plan signals no growth and no prospect of growth.

daltonmd wrote: »

That is not for me to say - that's their job, not mine.

So, you want the government to have an alternative plan, but you don;t have a clue what it should be?

daltonmd wrote: »

So then again, tell me, apart from access to the fund, why is this good for Ireland?

Instead of me telling you again, why don't you read back to what I told you before.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

The ESM treaty is an entirely different treaty to the treaty we are being asked to vote on.
I think you are mixing your treaties up.

Really? Care to clarify that? And I would ask you to - the orignal treaty was signed last year and the amendment added with the full agreement of the Irish goverment without any consultation to the Irish people. It is the SAME treaty - not a different one - unless of course I missed the advertisements for that election?

dvpower wrote: »

Nobody can change the treaty post hoc.
The treaty we are voting on is the one signed on 02 March 2012.
In the event of a change to the treaty, it would be a different treaty and would require a new ratification.

Eh, yes they can. France, for example has stated that they will not ratify the treaty as is - they are seeking amendments.

dvpower wrote: »

And Hollande may be an advocate of tax harmonisation, but he does not have the power to harmonise tax. That is clear.

Are you certain? What happened to the certainty argument?

dvpower wrote: »

So its a secret government policy to seek a new bailout - one that only certain people on the No side of the debate are privy to?

Then, and I ask this again, are they YES side only advocating access to the fund as a reason to vote yes - what are the other advantages to Ireland?

dvpower wrote: »

So, you want the government to have an alternative plan, but you don;t have a clue what it should be?

So you think I should have an alternative plan and the goverment shouldn't?

dvpower wrote: »

Instead of me telling you again, why don't you read back to what I told you before.

Because you didn't answer in your last posts.

daltonmd

As an aside - this is why I cannot vote yes.

The arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny. It is blind fate and desperation. We have had enough of that I think.....

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Really? Care to clarify that?

One is the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union".

The other is the "Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism".

We are voting on the former.

daltonmd wrote: »

Eh, yes they can. France, for example has stated that they will not ratify the treaty as is - they are seeking amendments.

Here is what we are voting on. Note the specific date. It doesn't say we can ratify anything but the treaty done on 02 March 2012.

The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State

daltonmd wrote: »

Are you certain? What happened to the certainty argument?

Yes. I am certain. But perhaps you can outline the legal mechanism by which Hollande can change our Corporate Tax rate or introduce a CCCTB?

daltonmd wrote: »

Then, and I ask this again, are they YES side only advocating access to the fund as a reason to vote yes - what are the other advantages to Ireland?

I can't talk for the Yes side. I can only give my own opinion which I covered in a previous post.

daltonmd wrote: »

So you think I should have an alternative plan and the goverment shouldn't?

I think the government should stick to their own plan and keep Plan B, C and D under wraps unless and until they need to use them.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

One is the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union".

The other is the "Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism".

We are voting on the former.

They are one and the same.

When first published, the Fiscal Compact (formally known as the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union)

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2012/05/452012-sunday-times-2942012-fiscal.html


"This one would authorize the Irish government to ratify the European Fiscal Compact. Formally known as the Treaty on Stability, Coordination, and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union"

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/boston-irishman-ireland/another-irish-referendum-campaign---the-politics-of-the-upcoming-vote-on-the-european-fiscal-compact-150148255.html#ixzz1vXzAxWfr

dvpower wrote: »

Here is what we are voting on. Note the specific date. It doesn't say we can ratify anything but the treaty done on 02 March 2012.

I have posted when it was orignially signed (July 2011) and posted the amendment date. I can do no more.

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. I am certain. But perhaps you can outline the legal mechanism by which Hollande can change our Corporate Tax rate or introduce a CCCTB?

So you think it's ok to vote first - without knowing what the amendments are?

dvpower wrote: »

I can't talk for the Yes side. I can only give my own opinion which I covered in a previous post.

And I remain on the fence (splinters are killing me lol)

dvpower wrote: »

I think the government should stick to their own plan and keep Plan B, C and D under wraps unless and until they need to use them.

They have no plan. It's access to more debt or wing it.

K-9

daltonmd wrote: »

And the reasons behind that reason has still not been properly addressed. Banking debt,huge personal debt, huge holes in the banks (mortgage debt), high unemployment, high wage in the PS/SW/Pensions, no growth and more importantly - no sign of growth.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have the biggest drop in market rates in Europe over the last year or so, that's fact, not blind faith.

European instability caused the rise last week.

daltonmd

K-9 wrote: »

If that was the case, we wouldn't have the biggest drop in market rates in Europe over the last year or so.

European instability caused the rise last week.

Are you saying that this is NOT the case?

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

They are one and the same.



When first published, the Fiscal Compact (formally known as the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union)



http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2012/05/452012-sunday-times-2942012-fiscal.html

They are two seperate treaties.

The "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union" is also known as the Fiscal Compact or the Stability Treaty (or the Austerity treaty, or whatever you're having yourself).

The "Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism" is a completely different treaty.

daltonmd wrote: »

I have posted when it was orignially signed (July 2011) and posted the amendment date. I can do no more.

Which is a shame, when some basic research would have done the trick.

daltonmd wrote: »

So you think it's ok to vote first - without knowing what the amendments are?

There can be no amendments that come into force without requiring us to ratify the new version.

In any case, the referendum commission have made it clear that we cannot postpone the referendum

K-9

daltonmd wrote: »

Are you saying that this is NOT the case?

I replied to your "statement" that bank debt etc has not been addressed as the reason why our market rate is 7.5% now and rose last week, despite it dropping hugely in the year before this.

You just ignored the fact that our market rate has dropped hugely and more than any other European country over the last year.

Our market rate nose diving would suggest the bank debt etc. isn't troubling the markets that much at all.

You were a no voter all along as far as I can see as you don't want to see any reason to vote yes. If one question is addressed, it's next, not oh I see, as an open mind would think.