Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

Options
1…2324262829…63

Comments

  • Options
    #752
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    A masterpiece of understatement!

    They are so "optimistic" they easily qualify as "fantasy"!

    And policies based on fantasy are not policies; just fantasies, wishful thinking - or whistling past the graveyard.

    Unless there is acceptance that a common currency means a eurzone Federal State assuming responsibility for all sovereign debt then we are operating in Europhile loo-la land.

    A NO vote to "austerity" is required, in Ireland and elsewhere, to bring the European Establishment to it's senses.

    But they fear they can't sell the notion of a Federal State to the periphery; or the notion of a transfer union to the Germans.

    And they are RIGHT!

    But without that, the current ECB policy (and an Irish "yes" vote) is an exercise in desperate fearful delusion.

    Time to confront reality - however painful.

    Vote NO for sane policies (and national self-respect).

    Think I rather wasted my time. Fair enough.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #753
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    A masterpiece of understatement!

    They are so "optimistic" they easily qualify as "fantasy"!

    And policies based on fantasy are not policies; just fantasies, wishful thinking - or whistling past the graveyard.

    Actually even with the poor real figures from the 1980's what Seamus Coffey says still works. So while we don't know what the future holds it is very unreasonable to call it fantasy. The 1980's was a poor period in our history so if the figures work for then they will probably work any time.
    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Unless there is acceptance that a common currency means a eurzone Federal State assuming responsibility for all sovereign debt then we are operating in Europhile loo-la land.

    And you'd be out voting no to that Federal state too.
    Wild Bill wrote: »
    A NO vote to "austerity" is required, in Ireland and elsewhere, to bring the European Establishment to it's senses.

    This really is one of the more bizarre claims the no side make. All the Fiscal limits in this treaty are already in other agreements, some from 20 years ago. So a Yes or no won't change those and borrowing one third of all government spending is why we're having austerity. I can't even imagine how us voting no will "bring the European Establishment to it's senses". What you're saying is at odds with reality.
    Wild Bill wrote: »
    But they fear they can't sell the notion of a Federal State to the periphery; or the notion of a transfer union to the Germans.

    Who fears?
    Wild Bill wrote: »
    But without that, the current ECB policy (and an Irish "yes" vote) is an exercise in desperate fearful delusion.

    Time to confront reality - however painful.

    Vote NO for sane policies (and national self-respect).

    Huh? they don't really care if we vote no. And honestly I'm not sure what this means really.


    K-9 gave you reasoned response using figures from one of our top economists and you have just gone on some conspiracy rant. You're just saying stuff that has no basis in reality and some of which quite frankly makes no sense.


  • Options
    #754
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    meglome wrote: »
    Actually even with the poor real figures from the 1980's what Seamus Coffey says still works. So while we don't know what the future holds it is very unreasonable to call it fantasy. The 1980's was a poor period in our history so if the figures work for then they will probably work any time.

    No comparison. In 1987 we were at per capita 70% GDP of the EU average; we came into this crisis at about 130%.

    And you'd be out voting no to that Federal state too.
    Correct.
    I can't even imagine how us voting no will "bring the European Establishment to it's senses". What you're saying is at odds with reality.
    Clearly, you are not watching the the democratic reaction across the EU to the EU Establishment position! :rolleyes:
    Who fears?
    The Europhile "elite" with their massive salaries and pensions and dreams of an Imperial European Superstate.

    Maybe you???

    K-9 gave you reasoned response using figures from one of our top economists and you have just gone on some conspiracy rant.
    Eh... no he didn't :cool:

    You're just saying stuff that has no basis in reality and some of which quite frankly makes no sense.
    Whatever....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


  • Options
    #755
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    No comparison. In 1987 we were at per capita 70% GDP of the EU average; we came into this crisis at about 130%.

    That's irrelevant. All we have to consider is what it takes to get from where we are now to where we need to be. And as I said even with the piss poor figures from the 1980's we can do that.

    Rather that just dismiss the figures why don't you get someone to check them.


  • Options
    #756
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    They've already ratified.
    They evidently want it renegotiated though. It shows the French election has been a game changer. Perhaps they could repeal the ratification.

    It also presumably shows that a Yes, or even ratifying, isn't a bar to renegotiating.

    I'm surprised you didn't spot that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #757
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    With many countries wanting a renegotiation or a growth pact added to this treaty and which much disquiet across the zone.....how long will it be until the great and fair EU tells Angela to eat grass and sit down and do it? Isn't that the way it should work if these 'rules' are genuine?


  • Options
    #758
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Isn't that the way it should work if these 'rules' are genuine?
    What 'rules', and why the danger quotes?


  • Options
    #759
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    With many countries wanting a renegotiation or a growth pact added to this treaty and which much disquiet across the zone.....how long will it be until the great and fair EU tells Angela to eat grass and sit down and do it? Isn't that the way it should work if these 'rules' are genuine?


    If the great and the good who claim to represent Ireland in this weeks meeting really were interested in getting something to do with growth going in this entity they would tell Merkel that they will change their position and advocate a No vote next week and may also refuse to ratify the ESM treaty unless they get a commitment to that end.

    Isn't that how politics is supposed to work?


  • Options
    #760
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What 'rules', and why the danger quotes?

    Are there any rules that say 'when a majority of states want something' then we sit down and neogtiate it?
    Seems to me everyone is running to Merkel to see what she has to say. Shouldn't we be able to say, 'Tough Angela, here's what we want...Portugal also want it, as do France, Greece, Spain' etc
    Isn't that how a democratic Union should work? So where are the rules safeguarding that? Simple question really, no danger answering it if you know they exist.


  • Options
    #761
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Are there any rules that say 'when a majority of states want something' then we sit down and neogtiate it?
    When anyone wants anything, they sit down and negotiate it. It's not about what a majority wants; it's about what the group as a whole can agree on.

    As for the 'rules', you should probably read the two treaties on which the EU is based, rather than hand-waving about "there oughta be a law".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #762
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    When anyone wants anything, they sit down and negotiate it. It's not about what a majority wants; it's about what the group as a whole can agree on.

    As for the 'rules', you should probably read the two treaties on which the EU is based, rather than hand-waving about "there oughta be a law".

    So there are no rules governing an instance where a stronger member state throws it's weight around? Spit it out and stop analysising me, there is or there isn't.


  • Options
    #763
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    If the great and the good who claim to represent Ireland in this weeks meeting really were interested in getting something to do with growth going in this entity they would tell Merkel that they will change their position and advocate a No vote next week and may also refuse to ratify the ESM treaty unless they get a commitment to that end.

    Isn't that how politics is supposed to work?
    There's a vision of politics where people who have signed up to something in good faith subsequently threaten not to make good on their commitments in order to attempt to extort a better deal out of their negotiating partners who also, in good faith, signed up to the same agreements.

    I'm not convinced it's how politics is "supposed to" work, but I guess it's an attractive proposition to a certain mindset.


  • Options
    #764
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So there are no rules governing an instance where a stronger member state throws it's weight around? Spit it out and stop analysising me, there is or there isn't.
    There are many, many rules governing the relationships of the member states as they interact in the many, many different ways envisioned by the treaties.

    I'm pretty sure there's nothing in either of the treaties about weight being thrown around, or indeed anything that would usefully define a "stronger" member state.

    Demanding that I tell you whether or not the treaties have provisions governing your rather playground-esque portrayal of a multilateral negotiation between sovereign nations is, to put it kindly, missing the point.


  • Options
    #765
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Are there any rules that say 'when a majority of states want something' then we sit down and neogtiate it?

    No.

    Treaty negotiation is the plain old fashioned inter-NATION process tha Euro-sceptics claim to favour. In it, if any one nation says "No" to the idea of a negotiation then either it doesn't start (usually) or the other nations need to go off and negotiate a new treaty amongst themselves without the Nay-sayer (a rarer event).

    European Federalists have long wanted to move away from the "Anyone can veto" model but there is no sign of that happening.

    I can't imagine most of our No supporters being in favour of that idea, so we are going to remain "hoisted on our own petard" anytime we want a change and even one of the other member states are prepared to veto it.


  • Options
    #766
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a vision of politics where people who have signed up to something in good faith subsequently threaten not to make good on their commitments in order to attempt to extort a better deal out of their negotiating partners who also, in good faith, signed up to the same agreements.

    That's a potted history of the EU right there is it not? It's its fundamental flaw, so to speak. And because of scale the periperary member states have to suck it up. Isn't it a different thing for Ireland to use its veto to Germany using theirs?


  • Options
    #767
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a vision of politics where people who have signed up to something in good faith subsequently threaten not to make good on their commitments in order to attempt to extort a better deal out of their negotiating partners who also, in good faith, signed up to the same agreements.

    There isn't just a vision on this, there is a UN Treaty on it (the Vienna Convention).

    But, flouting a UN Treaty won't cause anyone to have second thoughts about negotiating with us, right?


  • Options
    #768
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    View wrote: »
    No.

    Thank you.


  • Options
    #769
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That's a potted history of the EU right there is it not?
    I don't think so, but feel free to enlighten me.
    Isn't it a different thing for Ireland to use its veto to Germany using theirs?
    How is it different?

    Vetos are intrinsically undemocratic by their very nature. It's blatant doublethink to see a German veto as "throwing weight around" while seeing an Irish veto as some sort of heroic stand by the underdog.


  • Options
    #770
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a vision of politics where people who have signed up to something in good faith subsequently threaten not to make good on their commitments in order to attempt to extort a better deal out of their negotiating partners who also, in good faith, signed up to the same agreements.

    I'm not convinced it's how politics is "supposed to" work, but I guess it's an attractive proposition to a certain mindset.
    I take issue with the implication that if the Irish people vote no, that we are reneging on a deal to which we agreed. The Irish people did not negotiate the Treaty.


  • Options
    #771
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't think so, but feel free to enlighten me. How is it different?

    Vetos are intrinsically undemocratic by their very nature. It's blatant doublethink to see a German veto as "throwing weight around" while seeing an Irish veto as some sort of heroic stand by the underdog.

    I'm trying to understand some things, I think that the pressure brought to bear on smaller states shows very clearly here. Gilmore's inability to deliver on his pre-election guff, being a case in point. The insidious pressure to be 'the good boys and girls' of the EU is the only explanation for successive Irish governments (of any make or colour) behaviour. Germany would not feel the same pressure imo. That is a major flaw.
    e.g. Would the Germans or French (Hollande's election is proof that the French people have expressed their objection to this treaty in it's current form) be railroaded prematurely into a decision like we are being? I don't think so.
    That's the realities I am seeing, the system is flawed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #772
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a vision of politics where people who have signed up to something in good faith subsequently threaten not to make good on their commitments in order to attempt to extort a better deal out of their negotiating partners who also, in good faith, signed up to the same agreements.

    I'm not convinced it's how politics is "supposed to" work, but I guess it's an attractive proposition to a certain mindset.

    Strictly speaking we haven't signed up to it as as haven't ratified it so I would disagree with your interpretation that it could be construed to be a renege. Unless you are suggesting that he committed us to a yes vote. If that is the case then I take you would be of the opinion that the system we are operating in is not a democratic one.

    We have chips but our player is a band-wagoning follower rather than a decisive leader. That or he has fully accepted his position as a puppet but has yet to decide which hand he wants up there.


  • Options
    #773
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    I take issue with the implication that if the Irish people vote no, that we are reneging on a deal to which we agreed. The Irish people did not negotiate the Treaty.
    Read the post I was replying to.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand some things, I think that the pressure brought to bear on smaller states shows very clearly here.
    It may well be that pressure is brought to bear on smaller states, but you seem to want to deny the larger states the right to bring that pressure. Angela Merkel arrives at a negotiation as the head of the German government, and is answerable to the German electorate. Similarly Hollande in France, Kenny in Ireland, Thorning-Schmidt in Denmark, Juncker in Luxembourg...

    The idea that Merkel should be in some way inhibited from pushing for the best interests of the German people is a bizarre one to me.
    Gilmore's inability to deliver on his pre-election guff, being a case in point.
    Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that politicians shouldn't promise things they can't deliver.

    Of course, that would require that we actually hold them to that standard during election campaigns, which is not entirely likely.
    The insidious pressure to be 'the good boys and girls' of the EU is the only explanation for successive Irish governments (of any make or colour) behaviour.
    It's one explanation. It's a pretty cynical explanation, and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, but I guess it's a satisfying explanation from a certain lazy perspective.
    Germany would not feel the same pressure imo. That is a major flaw.
    How about Luxembourg? Does Luxembourg feel that pressure? Finland? The Netherlands?
    e.g. Would the Germans or French (Hollande's election is proof that the French people have expressed their objection to this treaty in it's current form) be railroaded prematurely into a decision like we are being? I don't think so.
    Just because some opponents to the treaty have created this idea that we're being railroaded to suit their narrative, don't make it so.

    And Hollande's election is proof of nothing other than that the French electorate considered him the best candidate for the job - the idea that a treaty that happens to be exercising Irish minds at the moment was the prime consideration in that election is the sort of breathtaking arrogance that only Irish people seem to be able to pull off.


  • Options
    #774
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    I take issue with the implication that if the Irish people vote no, that we are reneging on a deal to which we agreed. The Irish people did not negotiate the Treaty.

    We elected the people who negotiated the treaty. They may be idiots, but they're elected idiots.
    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Strictly speaking we haven't signed up to it as as haven't ratified it so I would disagree with your interpretation that it could be construed to be a renege. Unless you are suggesting that he committed us to a yes vote. If that is the case then I take you would be of the opinion that the system we are operating in is not a democratic one.

    We have chips but our player is a band-wagoning follower rather than a decisive leader. That or he has fully accepted his position as a puppet but has yet to decide which hand he wants up there.

    But we have signed up for it. We just haven't ratified it. And we pretty much were commited to a yes vote when Enda signed the treaty. It would be silly of him to sign a treaty he had no intention of campaigning to pass. This doesn't mean we have to pass it, just that it was expected since it's what our government asked for.


  • Options
    #775
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    I take issue with the implication that if the Irish people vote no, that we are reneging on a deal to which we agreed. The Irish people did not negotiate the Treaty.

    Our elected representatives did - which means by extension the Irish people did. That is how democracy works after all - we elect a government they, among other things, negotiate on our behalf with other govenrments.


  • Options
    #776
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Strictly speaking we haven't signed up to it as as haven't ratified it so I would disagree with your interpretation that it could be construed to be a renege. Unless you are suggesting that he committed us to a yes vote. If that is the case then I take you would be of the opinion that the system we are operating in is not a democratic one.
    As CEO of a business, if I sat down and negotiated a deal with another business in good faith, shook hands on it and walked away, I would expect the deal to go ahead as agreed.

    Legally speaking, I wouldn't have entered into a binding contract, but if the other party suddenly started trying to re-negotiate, I would be very reluctant to enter into another good-faith negotiation with them again.

    When you sign up to a treaty, you're committing to ratifying it. You're subscribing to the view I described earlier: it's OK to negotiate in bad faith, because the important thing is to get one over. It's not a view I share.
    We have chips but our player is a band-wagoning follower rather than a decisive leader. That or he has fully accepted his position as a puppet but has yet to decide which hand he wants up there.
    ...or we don't have the chips you claim we do. It's far too easy to claim that we have a strong negotiating position when you're not the one having to do the negotiating.


  • Options
    #777
    jetfiremuck
    Registered Users Posts: 3,467 ✭✭✭jetfiremuck


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    I take issue with the implication that if the Irish people vote no, that we are reneging on a deal to which we agreed. The Irish people did not negotiate the Treaty.

    Our elected representatives did - which means by extension the Irish people did. That is how democracy works after all - we elect a government they, among other things, negotiate on our behalf with other govenrments.

    Does any one now notice the change in temperament ... Jack boot tactics from Merkle has subdued due to the leftist in France in gov now. That cozy relationship with sarkozy created a lot of the angst here. Because of this a no vote will in effect disrupt the process enough to allow further options. Greece were to be out over Xmas now we gave issues with Spain. What about portugal????. Have we forgotten PIGS these are the 4 problem countries. Ffs


  • Options
    #778
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Our elected representatives did - which means by extension the Irish people did.
    No it does not.
    That is how democracy works after all - we elect a government they, among other things, negotiate on our behalf with other govenrments.
    That's how representative democracy works. However the Constitution creates a hybrid representative-direct democracy in which certain matters are reserved for the people to decide directly. Where such matters are concerned, the presumptiom that undertakings to foreign powers - not involved in any way in the election of our government - by our govt are the will of the Irish people are not necessarily correct. I know Dev once said that to discover what the irish people wanted he had only to look into his own heart, yet his actions in requiring referenda for Constitutional change suggests that deep down he realised that this was not the case. And likewise it need not be the case in 2012.

    If politicians were channelling the Irish people then we wouldn't need referenda.


  • Options
    #779
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Strictly speaking we haven't signed up to it as as haven't ratified it so I would disagree with your interpretation that it could be construed to be a renege. Unless you are suggesting that he committed us to a yes vote. If that is the case then I take you would be of the opinion that the system we are operating in is not a democratic one.

    We have chips but our player is a band-wagoning follower rather than a decisive leader. That or he has fully accepted his position as a puppet but has yet to decide which hand he wants up there.

    Negotiations, where someone is negotiating on your behalf, go like this - your agent goes in and negotiates the best deal he or she feels he can get. He then signs off on it, and comes back to recommend your acceptance.

    A corollary of that is that f he does not feel it is the best deal he can get, and his assent is necessary for the deal to be signed, then he has no business signing off on it.

    If your agent signs off on the deal, then the other parties to the deal have the right to believe that he believes it is the best deal he can get, and that he will recommend it to you as such.

    You, as the principal, can decide separately whether you like the deal, but your agent is duty bound to recommend it to you as the best deal he could get, because that is the basis on which he signed it. You may disagree, but for your agent to come back and say "this isn't the best deal we could get but I signed anyway - I recommend you reject it" isn't acceptable to anyone involved - you because he has signed off on a deal he didn't consider acceptable, the other parties because he signed off on a deal he's going to recommend you reject, thus wasting their time and effort, and making it clear he cannot be trusted in negotiations. The signature of that agent would be utterly worthless.

    So there isn't a choice for the government but to recommend a Yes to a Treaty they've signed - anything else makes their future signature on any deal worthless. The only possible excuse for such behaviour is where the negotiating team fear for their lives or safety, and I somehow doubt that was the case here.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #780
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    No it does not.That's how representative democracy works. However the Constitution creates a hybrid representative-direct democracy in which certain matters are reserved for the people to decide directly. Where such matters are concerned, the presumptiom that undertakings to foreign powers - not involved in any way in the election of our government - by our govt are the will of the Irish people are not necessarily correct.

    No, and that's obviously recognised in the referendum process. It doesn't change the fact that the government are - again, under the Constitution - the only agents authorised to negotiate on our behalf in such situations.

    Unless you're suggesting that the entire population should do the negotiating? There may be seating issues.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #781
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Negotiations, where someone is negotiating on your behalf, go like this - your agent goes in and negotiates the best deal he or she feels he can get. He then signs off on it, and comes back to recommend your acceptance.

    A corollary of that is that f he does not feel it is the best deal he can get, and his assent is necessary for the deal to be signed, then he has no business signing off on it.

    If your agent signs off on the deal, then the other parties to the deal have the right to believe that he believes it is the best deal he can get, and that he will recommend it to you as such.

    You, as the principal, can decide separately whether you like the deal, but your agent is duty bound to recommend it to you as the best deal he could get, because that is the basis on which he signed it. You may disagree, but for your agent to come back and say "this isn't the best deal we could get but I signed anyway - I recommend you reject it" isn't acceptable to anyone involved - you because he has signed off on a deal he didn't consider acceptable, the other parties because he signed off on a deal he's going to recommend you reject, thus wasting their time and effort, and making it clear he cannot be trusted in negotiations. The signature of that agent would be utterly worthless.

    So there isn't a choice for the government but to recommend a Yes to a Treaty they've signed - anything else makes their future signature on any deal worthless. The only possible excuse for such behaviour is where the negotiating team fear for their lives or safety, and I somehow doubt that was the case here.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    If a negotiator is compromised or lazy,they may agree to a deal less than the best they believe they can get. Do you accept that?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement