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

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

You know yourself and stealthrolex keep peddling this line. No serious economist is advocating a "no" vote. Independent agencies like NTMA and the Central Bank call for a "yes" vote.

It is only the madmen of the left (SF/ULA) and the madmen of the right who are calling for a "no".

Ironic that you should say that as I am neither right nor left wing. Sort of disproved your own theory there, congratulations sir
(For the record, I don't believe in a simple "right / left" political distinction. For instance, I identify with a lot of left wing activists causes such as anti imperialism and anti hegemonic power be it by nations or corporations, but I also utterly reject the concept of state control of everything, so far as state control = government control. My political ideology calls for far more democracy involving far more of the people in collective decision making, the traditional left/right divide places power in the hands of few, the only difference being that one side places it in the hands of the state whereas the other places it in the hands of large corporations. What can you call yourself if you don't fit either profile...?)

I believe the government's purpose is to protect our rights and provide fundamental services which cannot be left in the hands of those whose sole interest is to make a profit, but I utterly reject the concept of "big government". The irony is that both left AND right advocate "big government" - the left advocates it economically and the right socially. To use an analogy I'm rather fond of, the left wants the government's iron fist in your wallet controlling your money, the right wants the government's iron fist in your pants, controlling what you do with your willy in the privacy of your bedroom. I reject both :P

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ironic that you should say that as I am neither right nor left wing. Sort of disproved your own theory there, congratulations sir
(For the record, I don't believe in a simple "right / left" political distinction. For instance, I identify with a lot of left wing activists causes such as anti imperialism and anti hegemonic power be it by nations or corporations, but I also utterly reject the concept of state control of everything, so far as state control = government control. My political ideology calls for far more democracy involving far more of the people in collective decision making, the traditional left/right divide places power in the hands of few, the only difference being that one side places it in the hands of the state whereas the other places it in the hands of large corporations. What can you call yourself if you don't fit either profile...?)

I believe the government's purpose is to protect our rights and provide fundamental services which cannot be left in the hands of those whose sole interest is to make a profit, but I utterly reject the concept of "big government". The irony is that both left AND right advocate "big government" - the left advocates it economically and the right socially. To use an analogy I'm rather fond of, the left wants the government's iron fist in your wallet controlling your money, the right wants the government's iron fist in your pants, controlling what you do with your willy in the privacy of your bedroom. I reject both :P

OK, maybe I should just have said that it is only those madmen with ideologies such as madmen of the left (SF/ULA), madmen of the right (Ganley) of the madmen of somewhere in the middle (direct democracy rules) are advocating a "no" vote.

StealthRolex

Godge wrote: »

OK, maybe I should just have said that it is only those madmen with ideologies such as madmen of the left (SF/ULA), madmen of the right (Ganley) of the madmen of somewhere in the middle (direct democracy rules) are advocating a "no" vote.

Would you include Constantin Gurdgiev, David McWilliams and Caroline Simons in your list of nutters and madmen?

While they may not be openly advocating a no vote any reading would suggest that they do not see voting yes as the intelligent choice.

Godge

StealthRolex wrote: »

Would you include Constantin Gurdgiev, David McWilliams and Caroline Simons in your list of nutters and madmen?

While they may not be openly advocating a no vote any reading would suggest that they do not see voting yes as the intelligent choice.

The first two are celebrity economists who I have no time for, jump on the latest populist issue and make a pronunciation. No serious economist has any time for them.

Don't know Caroline Simons but googled her, found her .ie site, last blog in February so don't know how relevant, the about Caroline section has a pretty face.

StealthRolex

Godge wrote: »

The first two are celebrity economists who I have no time for, jump on the latest populist issue and make a pronunciation. No serious economist has any time for them.

Don't know Caroline Simons but googled her, found her .ie site, last blog in February so don't know how relevant, the about Caroline section has a pretty face.

That is neither here nor there as they are clearly intelligent and they appear to have no overt political ties though presumably they do vote for someone when they do vote.

They also make compelling arguments, write incredibly well, and in general are easily understood, and have no problem getting out there and engaging with the debate, unlike some politicians.

As for jumping on the latest populist issue what was Enda doing at the latest EU summit as regards "growth"?

By the way, are you going to answer the question - do you consider them nutters or madmen?

K-9

StealthRolex wrote: »

They also make compelling arguments, write incredibly well, and in general are easily understood, and have no problem getting out there and engaging with the debate, unlike some politicians.

McWilliams made a compelling argument for the bank blanket guarantee, so compelling Lenihan followed it.

paddydu

I have read most if not all the arguments for voting yes and it is obvious that they come from people who either are voting in fear not understanding what the treaty is really about or those that are privileged and inexperienced in real life terms. First the treaty is not about whether we can or can not borrow from the ESM in fact it should not even come in to the discussion. The discussion should be simple and in lay-mans terms. Do you want Germany to decide how much tax you pay if you are lucky enough to have or get a job, do you want Ireland to lose its low corporation tax (the only thing that has attracted outside investment since the crisis began) do you want permanent austerity and no growth, do you want another country to decide what services we keep or cut to the bone (health,medical card,dole,disability,free education,fuel allowance, on and on) who would be totally disconnected from the feelings of our people and the suffering, who would only allow us to invest when they decide to throw us a bone. If you are unlucky enough to be unemployed or disabled/ill and can not get a job you will soon know what real poverty is like and I don't mean like now just getting by, I mean not being able to pay for electric and having days where you have to go without food unless there is a dinner house nearby or even becoming homeless. Or being lucky enough to have work but having to work for just enough to pay the rent/mortgage and no hope of improving your situation because of the lack of economic investment. And if you are happy enough to give away what little we have left of our independence Then great vote yes!!!!!!
So if you want to vote yes there is no point in us having a general election ever again and that will be the end of democracy in our little country as we no it. I suppose we should count our blessings at least we had 91 years independence and some of it was good. I guess were not cut out to rule ourselves.
Well I'm off in July but before I leave the country that my grandfather (on both sides of the family) fought for and many relatives were shot for I'll do my duty and vote NO. Thank you for some of the well educated and discussed posts that I read on this thread both for and against.

Hotblack Desiato

jetfiremuck wrote: »

It was sarkosy and Merkel who were the central figures dictating the policy's that suited themselves and protected their interests. We are not getting an interest free loan from the IMF or Ecb .

Umm, why should we?

meglome

K-9 wrote: »

McWilliams made a compelling argument for the bank blanket guarantee, so compelling Lenihan followed it.

And astonishingly I see the no camp quoting him on a daily basis. I shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush but many no voters have some real memory blocks when it comes to people who agree with them on an issue now.

meglome

You know considering how rubbish what you posted is I'm not sure why I'm replying, but what the hell.

paddydu wrote: »

I have read most if not all the arguments for voting yes and it is obvious that they come from people who either are voting in fear not understanding what the treaty is really about or those that are privileged and inexperienced in real life terms.

Well from talking to many people online and in person I'll have to entirely disagree with you. Every day no voters have real trouble in here explaining why they will vote no. And certainly you've not given any cogent reasons.

paddydu wrote: »

IFirst the treaty is not about whether we can or can not borrow from the ESM in fact it should not even come in to the discussion. The discussion should be simple and in lay-mans terms. Do you want Germany to decide how much tax you pay if you are lucky enough to have or get a job, do you want Ireland to lose its low corporation tax (the only thing that has attracted outside investment since the crisis began) do you want permanent austerity and no growth, do you want another country to decide what services we keep or cut to the bone (health,medical card,dole,disability,free education,fuel allowance, on and on) who would be totally disconnected from the feelings of our people and the suffering, who would only allow us to invest when they decide to throw us a bone.

What you've said there is entirely wrong. There is nothing in this treaty that let's anyone from outside set our taxes or decide what our corporation tax rate is. I'm going to say this again for you... You are entirely mistaken.

I'll tell you what though feel free to show us in this whole 11 pages of treaty where the things you claims are? Otherwise I'd suggest you admit you're mistaken and move on.

paddydu wrote: »

If you are unlucky enough to be unemployed or disabled/ill and can not get a job you will soon know what real poverty is like and I don't mean like now just getting by, I mean not being able to pay for electric and having days where you have to go without food unless there is a dinner house nearby or even becoming homeless. Or being lucky enough to have work but having to work for just enough to pay the rent/mortgage and no hope of improving your situation because of the lack of economic investment. And if you are happy enough to give away what little we have left of our independence Then great vote yes!!!!!!

So by potentially making our borrowing more expensive you think we can make things better? Makes no sense.
And what independence have we lost that we should look for back? And I'll need specific things. Now considering we've managed to make a huge mess by fuelling a property bubble with all the independence that we'd supposedly lost this would be interesting.

paddydu wrote: »

So if you want to vote yes there is no point in us having a general election ever again and that will be the end of democracy in our little country as we no it. I suppose we should count our blessings at least we had 91 years independence and some of it was good. I guess were not cut out to rule ourselves.
Well I'm off in July but before I leave the country that my grandfather (on both sides of the family) fought for and many relatives were shot for I'll do my duty and vote NO. Thank you for some of the well educated and discussed posts that I read on this thread both for and against.

I can't help but notice you are saying "that will be the end of democracy in our little country" which is exactly the same thing Sinn Fein have been claiming since 1973. And in the ironic twists of all ironic twists we wrecked the place by using that same sovereignty that we'd supposedly lost ten times over. It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious.

My own grandfather fought in the war of independence and I am what could be described as a nationalist. I'm just not in some fantasy about what that actually means. I can see your problem though... you believe things are in this treaty which are clearly not, and are having a problem with those fictitious things. To be fair though basing your opinions on lies, myths, misdirection and exaggeration is not likely to allow anyone to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Godge

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is neither here nor there as they are clearly intelligent and they appear to have no overt political ties though presumably they do vote for someone when they do vote.

They also make compelling arguments, write incredibly well, and in general are easily understood, and have no problem getting out there and engaging with the debate, unlike some politicians.

As for jumping on the latest populist issue what was Enda doing at the latest EU summit as regards "growth"?

By the way, are you going to answer the question - do you consider them nutters or madmen?

So you think McWilliams makes compelling arguments, so if you were Brian Lenihan and McWilliams told you to guarantee the banks, you would do that, just like Brian did in September 2008 and make the biggest policy mistake that this country has ever seen. The guy has no credibility with me since then. If you think that McWilliams is the one we should listen to, explain how the guaranteeing the banks was a good idea.

As for Constantin, he has been claiming for the last several years that Ireland will inevitably default before the end of the year (he doesn't spcify which year so he can repeat every January the same message). Well, what do you know, we are still here.

Give us a break, the two lads are entertaining television, but don't expect them to necessarily know what they are talking about.

StealthRolex

K-9 wrote: »

McWilliams made a compelling argument for the bank blanket guarantee, so compelling Lenihan followed it.

Perhaps you enjoy dealing with libel charges

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

[MOD]Do not make legal threats. You will be banned.[/MOD]

Godge

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps you enjoy dealing with libel charges

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

OK, he admits giving his opinion to Brian Lenihan so he was an influence. Read his book for a different account.

He changed his mind by early 2009, well a lot of other people had seen through it from the start and it was way too late by then. Do some research and see how the EU and the UK opposed it, trying to save us from ourselves.

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

Would you include Constantin Gurdgiev, David McWilliams and Caroline Simons in your list of nutters and madmen?

While they may not be openly advocating a no vote any reading would suggest that they do not see voting yes as the intelligent choice.

Mc Williams hasn't worked as an economist in 10 years. Describing him as such is a bit like describing Niall Quinn as a current premier league footballer.

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps you enjoy dealing with libel charges

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

He's what he said on september 28th 2008 (from his own website)

The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.

In saying "everybody else" he includes bondholders. In his post that you highlighted he's being revisionist about what he said, saying that he didn't support the full guarantee. If he's being honest with himself, he's done a very bad job of articulating what it is he was supporting when he wrote that article two days before the government took his advice to guarantee everything.

StealthRolex

Godge wrote: »

So you think McWilliams makes compelling arguments, so if you were Brian Lenihan and McWilliams told you to guarantee the banks, you would do that, just like Brian did in September 2008 and make the biggest policy mistake that this country has ever seen. The guy has no credibility with me since then. If you think that McWilliams is the one we should listen to, explain how the guaranteeing the banks was a good idea.

Perhaps Mr McWilliams can provide a better answer to that

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

If you are going to attack McWilliams personally at least get the facts straight first.

Godge wrote: »

As for Constantin, he has been claiming for the last several years that Ireland will inevitably default before the end of the year (he doesn't spcify which year so he can repeat every January the same message). Well, what do you know, we are still here.

"will" is definitive. Are you sure he used that word and not "may". Clearly I don't follow his as closely as you do. As for the predictions or claims you refer to, I haven't heard them.

Godge wrote: »

Give us a break, the two lads are entertaining television, but don't expect them to necessarily know what they are talking about.

Something you should take up with whoever awarded them their degrees etc.

They certainly know more than the elected politicians and are prepared to put their reputations on the line publically unlike the faceless and nameless ones here.

Godge

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps Mr McWilliams can provide a better answer to that

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

If you are going to attack McWilliams personally at least get the facts straight first.

.

The link to his website on this issue has already been provided

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/09/28/state-guarantees-can-avert-depression


Read what he says:

"Therefore, it is crucial that the government take the right decision now. Events of the past few days imply that there is no model we can import from anywhere else to help us. The rest of the world is suffering the same plight. Large banks are going under by the day. Thus, if we wait, we will simply suffer more.
We need to come up with an Irish solution to our specific problem – because no one has the antidote to the contagion that is spreading through the global financial markets."

"The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.
If the minister does this, he will not only staunch any funds outflow, he will show leadership and be seen as someone who is coming up with a solution that can be copied all over the world."

"The beauty of guaranteeing deposits is that you use no money – not a penny. Instead, the government is using its sovereign credit as the country with Europe’s lowest debt/GDP level to restore confidence in the system. The civil service view appears to be that such a guarantee would subject Ireland to the risk that people withdraw money, disbelieving the state.
But this would not happen. Some €350 billion of the total €500 billion is held by Irish people, so we won’t move our cash. In addition, the €150 billion owned by foreigners would simply become like an Irish government paper.
The Irish bond market has never been in such demand, and so would this guarantee scheme."


You see, the bank debts become Irish government paper, like which bits of that are not bailing out the bondholders.

Then, read the comments, they fall into two camps, one is saying isn't great the government are listening to david at last, the other is saying this is a bad idea.

StealthRolex wrote: »

"will" is definitive. Are you sure he used that word and not "may". Clearly I don't follow his as closely as you do. As for the predictions or claims you refer to, I haven't heard them.

.

If you have heard him once, you have heard him a thousand times saying that Ireland will have to default. We haven't and we don't need to (bar some incredible collapse in Europe).

StealthRolex wrote: »

Something you should take up with whoever awarded them their degrees etc.

They certainly know more than the elected politicians and are prepared to put their reputations on the line publically unlike the faceless and nameless ones here.

Yes, and when the politicians followed what they said, the biggest economic disaster in the country happened.

StealthRolex

Godge wrote: »

The link to his website on this issue has already been provided

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/09/28/state-guarantees-can-avert-depression


Read what he says:

"Therefore, it is crucial that the government take the right decision now. Events of the past few days imply that there is no model we can import from anywhere else to help us. The rest of the world is suffering the same plight. Large banks are going under by the day. Thus, if we wait, we will simply suffer more.
We need to come up with an Irish solution to our specific problem – because no one has the antidote to the contagion that is spreading through the global financial markets."

"The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.
If the minister does this, he will not only staunch any funds outflow, he will show leadership and be seen as someone who is coming up with a solution that can be copied all over the world."

"The beauty of guaranteeing deposits is that you use no money – not a penny. Instead, the government is using its sovereign credit as the country with Europe’s lowest debt/GDP level to restore confidence in the system. The civil service view appears to be that such a guarantee would subject Ireland to the risk that people withdraw money, disbelieving the state.
But this would not happen. Some €350 billion of the total €500 billion is held by Irish people, so we won’t move our cash. In addition, the €150 billion owned by foreigners would simply become like an Irish government paper.
The Irish bond market has never been in such demand, and so would this guarantee scheme."


You see, the bank debts become Irish government paper, like which bits of that are not bailing out the bondholders.

Then, read the comments, they fall into two camps, one is saying isn't great the government are listening to david at last, the other is saying this is a bad idea.




If you have heard him once, you have heard him a thousand times saying that Ireland will have to default. We haven't and we don't need to (bar some incredible collapse in Europe).




Yes, and when the politicians followed what they said, the biggest economic disaster in the country happened.

Depositors and creditors only. Was this advice followed?

And you still haven't answered the question and appear to prefer to follow a more malicious route. Do you consider them madman and nutters?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Depositors and creditors only. Was this advice followed?

Well, yes. "Creditors" = anyone to whom the banks owe money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, yes. "Creditors" = anyone to whom the banks owe money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

If the banks borrowed money on the open market they are legitimate creditors. Essential a creditor is a depositor who has a negative deposit. I see no issue with guaranteeing them. Do you?

The issue with the bank guarantee is that against the advice it went above and beyond the depositors and those with a negative deposit.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

Do you know what a bondholder is?

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you know what a bondholder is?

They bought bonds in the banks at a rate of interest - effectively a loan to the banks. Sovereign bondholders on the other hand lend to the state.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

If the banks borrowed money on the open market they are legitimate creditors. Essential a creditor is a depositor who has a negative deposit. I see no issue with guaranteeing them. Do you?

The issue with the bank guarantee is that against the advice it went above and beyond the depositors and those with a negative deposit.

No, a bondholder is a creditor. A bond is essentially a loan of a specified duration - money borrowed on the open market.

What exactly did you think a bondholder was?

curious,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

They bought bonds in the banks at a rate of interest - effectively a loan to the banks. Sovereign bondholders on the other hand lend to the state.

Not bonds "in" the banks - just the bonds of the banks. A depositor and a bondholder are both people who lend their money to the bank. Both are creditors of the bank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not bonds "in" the banks - just the bonds of the banks. A depositor and a bondholder are both people who lend their money to the bank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's what I meant by "in". Figure of speech.

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

Okay then, why were the bondholders included?

The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else.

Bonds are not shares, therefore bondholders belong to the group "everyone else".

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you know what a bondholder is?

I know what they are not!

They are not depositors nor are they negative depositors.

If the banks were lending out money that was not based on deposits held or cash borrowed but rather was based on the funds raised through bonds sold you cannot go shifting the blame for this fiasco away from the Government to private individuals.

The Governments move to guarantee bonds over deposits was their error.

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, a bondholder is a creditor. A bond is essentially a loan of a specified duration - money borrowed on the open market.

What exactly did you think a bondholder was?

curious,
Scofflaw

A bond is some thing that can be bought and sold. It is not a loan.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

I know what they are not!

They are not depositors nor are they negative depositors.

If the banks were lending out money that was not based on deposits held or cash borrowed but rather was based on the funds raised through bonds sold you cannot go shifting the blame for this fiasco away from the Government to private individuals.

The Governments move to guarantee bonds over deposits was their error.

Hold up - the point here is that McWilliams said the government should guarantee all depositors and other creditors. The bondholders are creditors, and McWilliams was therefore saying the government should guarantee bondholders.

Any comment on that?

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Governments move to guarantee bonds over deposits was their error.

Senior bonds are (and have been for many years) legally ranked higher than deposits. The move to guarantee the senior bonds was required if they wanted to guarantee deposits.

So now it's an error to do something that is legally required?