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

Captain Darling

Anyone else posting in this thread beside you guys?

*looks around*

*leaves*

K-9

Captain Darling wrote: »

Anyone else posting in this thread beside you guys?

*looks around*

*leaves*

Ah it is indeed AH.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

No point arguing the toss with you.

@K9 - I remain undecided and your arguments (Like most yes ones) are not swinging me.

K-9

daltonmd wrote: »

dvpower wrote: »

No point arguing the toss with you.

@K9 - I remain undecided and your arguments (Like most yes ones) are not swinging me.

What No ones are swinging you?

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

No point arguing the toss with you.

My work here is done :cool:

InReality

dvpower wrote: »

Like everything else, we're going to be borrowing for it or selling assets:mad:


If the sh1t hits the fan, its likely that we will be the sh1t, not the fan.

What happens if the sh1t hits the fan and we're not in the ESM? I don't hear a reasonable explanation from anyone on the No side on this question.

there will be another referendum , or some sort of eu bailout.
eu has to do that

InReality

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

If this treaty is rejected, just how likely is it that we will be asked to vote again ala Nice?

A certainty imho. Which is one of the reasons i'm voting no

InReality

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem here is that the government are having to play both sides: on the one hand, publicly talk up the economy for the benefit of citizens and the markets, and on the other hand deal with our economic situation (which they know well will probably entail a second bailout). If they admit that the second bailout may be required, then it certainly will be. If they try to bluff it out, there's a chance we won't need the second bailout but if (and likely, when) we do, they look like fools or liars.

I think this idea "publicly talk up the economy for the benefit of citizens and the markets," is a complete nonense. If anything "talking up" the economy is proof when a country is in real sh***.
I don't know why pols don't see this - I think they just feel they should do "something" and sadly its the only thing they can do..

dvpower

InReality wrote: »

there will be another referendum , or some sort of eu bailout.
eu has to do that

And the cost of that money will likely be a lot higher than money coming from the ESM.

Why the hell would we reject cheap money now, for the possibility of more expensive money later?

Hootanany

It's. Time to bring down our PS. Service cost big time and SW as well go for the jugular.

dvpower

Hootanany wrote: »

It's. Time to bring down our PS. Service cost big time and SW as well go for the jugular.

I don't see one political party advocating that.

Some people on boards sure, but no one willing to put that idea to the electorate.

Hootanany

dvpower wrote: »

I don't see one political party advocating that.

Some people on boards sure, but no one willing to put that idea to the electorate.

it's got to be done one way or the other. SimPle

mikemac1

If we vote no can we get some leverage and wipe off some billions by haggling and then vote yes the next time?

K-9

dvpower wrote: »

I don't see one political party advocating that.

Some people on boards sure, but no one willing to put that idea to the electorate.

Indeed, I think it has started to dawn on them that even the IMF aren't the saviors they thought they were going to be.

Hootanany

mikemac1 wrote: »

If we vote no can we get some leverage and wipe off some billions by haggling and then vote yes the next time?

Just vote no PS will have to be sorted then only way afraid
I have nothing afaist them but we can't afford this level of pay anymore more.
It's not the pay it's the perks that have to go.

dvpower

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, I think it has started to dawn on them that even the IMF aren't the saviors they thought they were going to be.

I suppose theres always self flagellation to fall back on.

InReality

dvpower wrote: »

And the cost of that money will likely be a lot higher than money coming from the ESM.

Why the hell would we reject cheap money now, for the possibility of more expensive money later?

Maybe it will.
There is so much going on I don't think paying even 1 or 2 billion more in interest is that important.

My view would be that a NO vote could / might / may

1. Mean that the Govt would neg harder to get the EU/Germans to pay for a share of the banking debt.
2. That the Germans may ease up their hardline no deficit position.

I think this weeks economist leader article has a good middle way forward.

Like I said I'd hope a NO vote could trigger the above.
Realistically I think all it will mean is another referendum.

I don't see a downside to a NO vote mind - I think the "lack of confidence" talk from the YES side is either misinformed or just scare tactics.

dvpower

InReality wrote: »

Maybe it will.
There is so much going on I don't think paying even 1 or 2 billion more in interest is that important.

I'd say that paying 1 - 2 billion more is very important.
What would you be getting for this €1-2bn?

InReality wrote: »

My view would be that a NO vote could / might / may

1. Mean that the Govt would neg harder to get the EU/Germans to pay for a share of the banking debt.
2. That the Germans may ease up their hardline no deficit position.

Some vague hopes for the small price of €1-2bn? No thanks.

InReality wrote: »

I think this weeks economist leader article has a good middle way forward.

It was calling for a "limited version of federalism" which implies more shared fiscal responsibility and oversight - something the treaty contains.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I'm going to vote no purely because if the No vote wins they'll make us vote again anyway and maybe next time we might have a clearer idea on what the fúck were voting for and then i may vote yes.

dvpower

CJC999 wrote: »

I'm going to vote no purely because if the No vote wins they'll make us vote again anyway and maybe next time we might have a clearer idea on what the fúck were voting for and then i may vote yes.

If that was ever a possibility, it was ruled out definitively last week after Richard Bruton's gaffe.

Anita Blow

I'm still undecided as to what I'll vote, leaning towards no, but just to the people voting no on the premise that we can negotiate some deal and vote again- This is an opt-in treaty. If we vote no, the rest of the countries which have ratified it can just go straight ahead without us. They don't need us to vote yes for it to go ahead (Like they did for Lisbon) so we have absolutely no leverage.

Really pissed me off the contempt some Irish people have for the big privilege we have here to be able to vote on each treaty. I will respect any vote, whether it's yes or no, as long as you ****ing are voting on the treaty text and not some vague notion we can be bribed or just succumbing to party slogans "Yes to jobs", "Voting yes means permanent austerity" blah blah blah.

InReality

dvpower wrote: »

I'd say that paying 1 - 2 billion more is very important.
What would you be getting for this €1-2bn?


Some vague hopes for the small price of €1-2bn? No thanks.


It was calling for a "limited version of federalism" which implies more shared fiscal responsibility and oversight - something the treaty contains.

When the Bank Debt is 10's of billions ...

Is there another way to reduce it ?

InReality

dvpower wrote: »

If that was ever a possibility, it was ruled out definitively last week after Richard Bruton's gaffe.

How did Bruton's gaffe make another referendum less likely ?

InReality

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm still undecided as to what I'll vote, leaning towards no, but just to the people voting no on the premise that we can negotiate some deal and vote again- This is an opt-in treaty. If we vote no, the rest of the countries which have ratified it can just go straight ahead without us. They don't need us to vote yes for it to go ahead (Like they did for Lisbon) so we have absolutely no leverage.

Really pissed me off the contempt some Irish people have for the big privilege we have here to be able to vote on each treaty. I will respect any vote, whether it's yes or no, as long as you ****ing are voting on the treaty text and not some vague notion we can be bribed or just succumbing to party slogans "Yes to jobs", "Voting yes means permanent austerity" blah blah blah.

I see a NO vote more as encourging our govt to be more aggressive in its negotions (sp) , than anything else.
We have quite a lot leverage as a member of the Euro, its just that almost all the goverment pols are almost brainwashed to be pro-EU even when France and Germany are running the ECB to suit their own interests.

I have a lot of regard for the fact we can vote and that we , along with the Greece voters , the only public / democratic response to the current EU planners.

dvpower

InReality wrote: »

How did Bruton's gaffe make another referendum less likely ?

Because after it, various Government ministers including Bruton and the Taoiseach publicly stated that there would be no second referendum.

dvpower

InReality wrote: »

When the Bank Debt is 10's of billions ...

Is there another way to reduce it ?

Probably not. We might be able to get some of it federalized down the line, but I think we are just going to have to grow and inflate our way through it.

InReality

dvpower wrote: »

Because after it, various Government ministers including Bruton and the Taoiseach publicly stated that there would be no second referendum.

Ah I hadn't see them. Will have to find this thread next year

Will have to check if paddy power are giving odds on another referendum.

Smidge

dvpower wrote: »

Probably not. We might be able to get some of it federalized down the line, but I think we are just going to have to grow and inflate our way through it.

From what I have taken about this referendum is that it will lead to further austerity, and I gather a lot more people think this, not just me.

If there is further austerity after a yes vote, how would it be possible to grow and inflate our way out of it?

dvpower

mishkalucy wrote: »

[/B]


From what I have taken about this referendum is that it will lead to further austerity, and I gather a lot more people think this, not just me.

If there is further austerity after a yes vote, how would it be possible to grow and inflate our way out of it?

There will be further austerity no matter how we vote, but more after a No vote because that shuts us off from the ESM and results in probable downgrades by the rating agencies leading to higher bond prices.

Smidge

dvpower wrote: »

There will be further austerity no matter how we vote, but more after a No vote because that shuts us off from the ESM and results in probable downgrades by the rating agencies leading to higher bond prices.

I am not trying to be argumentative as sometimes happens in these posts :rolleyes: but genuinely trying to make an informed choice.

So we borrow more money even after austerity?

Doesn't make sense to me

dvpower

mishkalucy wrote: »

I am not trying to be argumentative as sometimes happens in these posts :rolleyes: but genuinely trying to make an informed choice.

So we borrow more money even after austerity?

Doesn't make sense to me

This isn't a vote on austerity.

christmas2012

borrow money at low interest - yes

borrow money at high interest - no

make ur vote

paddyandy

Austerity either way it seems .

i8mancs

InReality wrote: »

I see a NO vote more as encourging our govt to be more aggressive in its negotions (sp) ,


Im on the floor here with laughter, teachers aggressive