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

FreudianSlippers

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Treaty didn't even exist at the time of the GE so the govt does not have a mandate to ratify. That is why it is holding this referendum - to obtain such a mandate. We are not a representative democracy. We are a hybrid representative-direct democracy.

Actually it's a constitutional referendum (meaning a change to the constitution) rather than an ordinary referendum (which we have never had).

FreudianSlippers

paddydu wrote: »

The discussion should be simple and in lay-mans terms. Do you want Germany to decide how much tax you pay

I'll just stop you right there and point out that if we were subject to the requirements under the treaty to reduce deficit; we, and only we, would be the ones who determined where and what cuts/increases were implemented. "Germany" has no say in how we implement the cuts or increase taxes to reduce deficit.

StealthRolex wrote: »

libel charges

There is no such thing I'm afraid.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Still voting No primarily because I think the treaty is an EU solution to an EU problem and given the EU's track record it is probably not the right thing to sign in to law.

I think on top of everything else you're a bit muddied on EU and Eurozone issues and distinctions. I would tend to call this a European solution to an international problem. If we want to continue in the Eurozone (which we, as a whole, do) then we must continue in line with the rest of the Eurozone. Again (and until we see what happens with Greece) there is no way to effectively leave the Eurozone without leaving the EU; that would cause a whole heap of trouble for us I'm afraid.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

Any evidence that Merkel is an idiot or is that your professional opinion?

Everyone knows all idiots get doctorates in quantum chemistry. :rolleyes: All of this also coming from the person talking about "libel" in Ireland.

StealthRolex

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think on top of everything else you're a bit muddied on EU and Eurozone issues and distinctions. I would tend to call this a European solution to an international problem. If we want to continue in the Eurozone (which we, as a whole, do) then we must continue in line with the rest of the Eurozone. Again (and until we see what happens with Greece) there is no way to effectively leave the Eurozone without leaving the EU; that would cause a whole heap of trouble for us I'm afraid.

Actually it's a German solution - the only reason there is a fiscal compact is to appease the Germans who have to supply funds to the ESM. All the rules already exist, have been broken my many, the first being Germany.

meglome

StealthRolex wrote: »

All the rules already exist, have been broken my many, the first being Germany.

So I gleam from this you think having rules which can be easily broken is a problem, yet you want us to vote no which will allow countries to continue to break the rules. Makes no sense.

christmas2012

I still dont know which way i will vote,i think there is a lot of information out there designed to confuse the ordinary voter,apparently according to the 'no side',there are rules that are not fully decided on,and we wont get to decide on them and they havent been written in yet,according to the 'yes side' we will have no access to low interest funds if we dont vote yes.

StealthRolex

meglome wrote: »

So I gleam from this you think having rules which can be easily broken is a problem, yet you want us to vote no which will allow countries to continue to break the rules. Makes no sense.

not exactly. it would appear that some rules are enforceable and some are not - it all depends on the country.

what is pissing me off is that the reason for having the fiscal compact is the country that breaks the rules and is allowed get away with it.

Ireland has always kept to the rules anyway.

But, lets say all the banks decide they will no longer offer an overdraft facility - ever! and if you do not abide by that because you don't have the funds to you will be fined. Does that seem fair?

That is the fiscal compact in an nutsehell and it was dictated to the rest of the EU by German with France along with a threat of no access to imaginary ESM funds if we do not comply.

I don't like bullies.

I'm voting No

StealthRolex

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Everyone knows all idiots get doctorates in quantum chemistry. :rolleyes: All of this also coming from the person talking about "libel" in Ireland.

In my experience people who get qualifications in quantum sciences tend to think that everyone else is an idiot.

I have no problem with her treating Ahern, Cowen, Kenny and Gilmore like idiots because they are but I object to her treating the Irish nation like idiots even if she is right to. There are some in this country who are her peers when it comes to quantum chemistry.

Scofflaw

christmas2012 wrote: »

I still dont know which way i will vote,i think there is a lot of information out there designed to confuse the ordinary voter,apparently according to the 'no side',there are rules that are not fully decided on,and we wont get to decide on them and they havent been written in yet,according to the 'yes side' we will have no access to low interest funds if we dont vote yes.

I'm afraid so - it's not a consequence-free decision either way. Sometimes life is like that.

On the structural balance rules, though, Ireland will apparently be setting those up for Ireland - although in consultation with the Commission and with the ECJ capable of deciding whether our rules are adequate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wild Bill

Vast postings since my last visit; haven't read the all the detail, so I'll comment on two "trends" I noticed:

(1) An assertion that we (the Irish people as a whole) would be reneging on a commitment if we voted no to the Fiscal Treaty.

This is an insane notion based on pseudo-legalism that has nothing to do with political or moral legitimacy.

We voted for parties who specifically promised to do the opposite of what they did in relation to the bailout; that is not democracy in any meaningful sense. We have an absolute moral right to reject the bailout conditions and/or the treaty on the basis that there has been no democratic support for it.

(2) The extent of the National Dept; I'll stick with my debt clock. Folk claiming the debt is repayable habitually refuse to cite

- their growth assumptions,
- future borrowings,
- further recapitalization/bad debts exposed (see the latest news on the mortgage front)
- interest rate assumptions
- inflation projections
- Govt expenditure assumptions

Without these the fantasy claim that the debt is repayable is just that, fantasy. :cool:

K-9

Wild Bill wrote: »

Vast postings since my last visit; haven't read the all the detail, so I'll comment on two "trends" I noticed:

(1) An assertion that we (the Irish people as a whole) would be reneging on a commitment if we voted no to the Fiscal Treaty.

This is an insane notion based on pseudo-legalism that has nothing to do with political or moral legitimacy.

We voted for parties who specifically promised to do the opposite of what they did in relation to the bailout; that is not democracy in any meaningful sense. We have an absolute moral right to reject the bailout conditions and/or the treaty on the basis that there has been no democratic support for it.

(2) The extent of the National Dept; I'll stick with my debt clock. Folk claiming the debt is repayable habitually refuse to cite

- their growth assumptions,
- future borrowings,
- further recapitalization/bad debts exposed (see the latest news on the mortgage front)
- interest rate assumptions
- inflation projections
- Govt expenditure assumptions

Without these the fantasy claim that the debt is repayable is just that, fantasy. :cool:

I gave you a link to a piece from Seamus Coffey basing it on IMF projections, couple of times IIRC.

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

Vast postings since my last visit; haven't read the all the detail, so I'll comment on two "trends" I noticed:

(1) An assertion that we (the Irish people as a whole) would be reneging on a commitment if we voted no to the Fiscal Treaty.

This is an insane notion based on pseudo-legalism that has nothing to do with political or moral legitimacy.

We voted for parties who specifically promised to do the opposite of what they did in relation to the bailout; that is not democracy in any meaningful sense. We have an absolute moral right to reject the bailout conditions and/or the treaty on the basis that there has been no democratic support for it.

(2) The extent of the National Dept; I'll stick with my debt clock. Folk claiming the debt is repayable habitually refuse to cite

- their growth assumptions,
- future borrowings,
- further recapitalization/bad debts exposed (see the latest news on the mortgage front)
- interest rate assumptions
- inflation projections
- Govt expenditure assumptions

Without these the fantasy claim that the debt is repayable is just that, fantasy. :cool:

I am challenging you to find one serious poster who claimed that the debt is repayable.

There are plenty of posters and serious economists who have pointed out that the 60% of GDP ratio is achievable by growth and inflation. How? A ratio has two components. In this case one is the level of debt, the other is the size of GDP. If GDP increases faster than the debt increases, then the ratio of debt to GDP falls. Thus a government can run a small deficit and still achieve the targets so long as growth and inflation together are greater than that deficit.

In that scenario the debt increases all the time and therefore is never repaid.

It is fantasy to suggest that people here have been suggesting that the debt can be repaid.

Wild Bill

Godge wrote: »

It is fantasy to suggest that people here have been suggesting that the debt can be repaid.

OK. So we all agree we can never repay the debt. That's a start. It took you all a while to come clean on that.

Now let's address the consequences that flow from that.

Let's start with the fact that Government policies that assume the debt can be repaid are insane...OK?

meglome

Wild Bill wrote: »

OK. So we all agree we can never repay the debt. That's a start. It took you all a while to come clean on that.

Now let's address the consequences that flow from that.

Let's start with the fact that Government policies that assume the debt can be repaid are insane...OK?

Wow way to read something and then hear what you want.

Nobody is saying we'd ever pay off the debt as we don't need to. If you want to selectively quote that as the no campaign has already been caught doing bully for you.

Scofflaw

Wild Bill wrote: »

OK. So we all agree we can never repay the debt. That's a start. It took you all a while to come clean on that.

Now let's address the consequences that flow from that.

Let's start with the fact that Government policies that assume the debt can be repaid are insane...OK?

They're in your head, so I think you're entitled to say what you like about them! If you have any examples from outside your imagination, feel free to provide links to them, obviously. Government policies assume that the debt is sustainable, which isn't the same thing as repayable.

there's fine smell of straw in here,
Scofflaw

Wild Bill

Scofflaw wrote: »

Government policies assume that the debt is sustainable, which isn't the same thing as repayable.

If it's not repayable then it ain't sustainable. QED. :cool:

meglome

Wild Bill wrote: »

If it's not repayable then it ain't sustainable. QED. :cool:

At any moment I'm expecting you to start claiming gravity doesn't exist as you can't see that either.

oscarBravo

Wild Bill wrote: »

QED.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

Wild Bill

oscarBravo wrote: »

I do not think that means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means!

If you can't join the dots that ain't my problem :cool:

(btw; I'm not claiming that "repayable = sustainable" in any generic sense; but it manifestly is in the case of Irish sovereign debt)

Chew on that.

Wild Bill

meglome wrote: »

At any moment I'm expecting you to start claiming gravity doesn't exist as you can't see that either.

Next thing you'll be telling me you know how gravity works!

I won't buy that pig-in-a-poke either :rolleyes:

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

OK. So we all agree we can never repay the debt. That's a start. It took you all a while to come clean on that.

You are even more revisionist than Sinn Fein.

You, yes you, suggested that a lot of people on boards were suggesting that the debt could and would be repaid. I pointed out the serious flaw in your naive understanding* and challenged you to find one serious poster who posted what you have alleged was a common type of post.

You flunked that challenge, big time and tried to divert the issue. Now that you have particularly referred to me (as in you all) please find any post by me where I said that the debt would have to be repaid.

Time to back up your posts with something concrete.

*let me remind you, nobody ever said the debt would have to be repaid, they said that growth and inflation would mean that the targets would not mean having to pay down debt

Wild Bill

Godge wrote: »

Now that you have particularly referred to me (as in you all) please find any post by me where I said that the debt would have to be repaid.

The general is not the particular. The debt cannot be repaid. Where did I claim that you said that it could?

*let me remind you, nobody ever said the debt would have to be repaid, they said that growth and inflation would mean that the targets would not mean having to pay down debt

I asked what the growth and inflation assumptions are?

Still waiting for a reply..........

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

If it's not repayable then it ain't sustainable. QED. :cool:

Unbelievable. You really don't have a clue. Let me take this away from the state debt and bring it into the realm of personal debt for a minute.

Say you have a 30-year mortgage of 400,000 and are earning 40,000 a year. At one level that is unsustainable. Your debt is 1000% of your income. Let us say that your earnings are growing at 50% a year cumulative.

Year 1 40,000
Year 2 60,000
Year 3 90,000
Year 4 135,000
Year 5 202,500
Year 6 303,750
Year 7 455,375 or something

So you see your debt, still at 400,000 assuming you are paying interest-only is now less than your yearly income.

But hey, here is the good news, buddy. The Irish state is not in that bad of a predicament. Debt will peak at 118% of GDP. What that means for the kid on 40,000 is that his mortgage would peak at 47,200. Think there are a lot of mortgage-holders out there who would like that calculation.

So to sum up, withdraw your comments or back them up.

K-9

Wild Bill wrote: »

The general is not the particular. The debt cannot be repaid. Where did I claim that you said that it could?




I asked what the growth and inflation assumptions are?

Still waiting for a reply..........

You asked for them a few days back, were told they were based on IMF projections and are still moaning.

Here's the piece again, growth and inflation assumptions are contained within:

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/complying-with-debt-reduction-rule.html

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

The general is not the particular. The debt cannot be repaid. Where did I claim that you said that it could?




I asked what the growth and inflation assumptions are?

Still waiting for a reply..........

(1) "you all" would include me if you are replying to me.

(2) the growth and inflation assumptions have been done to death here. Seamus Coffey did them on his website with something like 1% growth and 2% inflation. He also pointed out that his assumptions were much much below the historical performance of the Irish economy. This has been quoted more than once. Scofflaw did them with less, someone else or maybe Scofflaw did them with 1980s growth and inflation. Each time they showed that the debt would continue to rise but that we would get closer to the 60% debt/GDP ratio. All of these have popped up on numerous threads here.

(3) You are still waiting for a reply, where is the poster that made the "fantasy claim that the debt is repayable" You referred to this several posts ago and I challenged you to find that post and you have continued to avoid doing so.

Scofflaw

Wild Bill wrote: »

If it's not repayable then it ain't sustainable. QED. :cool:

Eh, no. States don't repay debt unless they absolutely have to - they just roll it over. Here's the public debt history of the State since 1990:

Year|Debt(€bn)|Debt (%GDP)|Interest costs % Tax
1990|34.2|94.5|28
1991|36|95.5|26.6
1992|37|92.4|24.7
1993|41.1|95.2|21.4
1994|41.7|89.8|20
1995|43.6|82.1|18.8
1996|43.2|73.5|18
1997|43.7|64.3|17
1998|42.1|53.6|13.8
1999|43.9|48.5|9.8
2000|39.7|37.8|8.8
2001|41.6|35.6|6.4
2002|41.9|32.2|5.3
2003|43.3|31|4.9
2004|44.3|29.7|4
2005|44.7|27.5|3.8
2006|44|24.7|4.1
2007|47.4|24.9|4.1
2008|79.6|44.2|3.8
2009|104.6|65.1|7.7
2010|144.2|92.5|14.2
2011|169.3|108.2|17.4
2012|182.71|115|19
2013|195.78|119|20
2014|202.49|118|20.1

So in 1990 we had a public debt of €34.2bn, and that was 94.5% of GDP, while interest costs on the debt absorbed 28% of tax revenue. That was a sustainable position (albeit not a comfortable one) even though the debt continued to increase - it was sustainable because, despite not paying down the debt, we were able to service the interest and grow the economy, which meant that our debt/GDP ratio started to fall even though we didn't pay back the debt.

It's not about repayment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jeff the Yank

An explanation as to why pulling back government spending at this juncture is stupid...

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/paul_krugman_destroys_every_republican_argument_for_austerity

"We are in a depression. We are actually in a classic depression. A depression is when nobody wants to spend. Everybody wants to pay down their debt at the same time. Everybody is trying to pull back, either because they got too far into debt, or because if they’re a corporation, they can’t sell because consumers are pulling back. The thing about an economy is that it fits together. My spending is your income. Your spending is my income, so if we all pull back at the same time, we’re in a depression. The way to get out of it is for somebody to spend so that people can pay down their debt, so that we don’t have a depression. So that we have a chance to work out of whatever excesses we had in the past, and that somebody has to be the government.
We ended the Great Depression with a great program of government spending for an unfortunate reason. It was known as World War II…but when the war broke out in Europe, and we began our buildup that Great Depression that had been going on for ten years. People thought it would go on forever. Learned people stroked their chins and said there are no quick answers. In two years, employment rose 20%. That’s the equivalent of 26 million jobs today, the depression was over. We had full employment, and it never came back, or it didn’t come back until 2008, because people managed to pay down those debts, and we had a durable recovery."

Taxi Drivers

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not sure if this page is correct but it suggests our external debt was 2,378,000,000,000 dollars as of Nov 2011

That is trillion, isn't it? I can't recall if we call 1,000,000,000 a billion or 1,000,000,000,000 a billion

either way it looks to be a little bit more than 250bn.

Granted it is nowhere near 250bn so they were essentially wrong but were you thinking they were underestimating it?

My reading is that anything more than 250bn is a vindication.

Neither McWilliams nor Gurdgiev have a good record when it comes to describing Ireland's debt position.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/05/constantin-gurdgiev-on-irelands-public.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/seamus-coffey-david-mcwilliams-analysis-of-private-debt-is-stark-but-it-also-100pc-wrong-3000117.html

Scofflaw

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

An explanation as to why pulling back government spending at this juncture is stupid...

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/paul_krugman_destroys_every_republican_argument_for_austerity

"We are in a depression. We are actually in a classic depression. A depression is when nobody wants to spend. Everybody wants to pay down their debt at the same time. Everybody is trying to pull back, either because they got too far into debt, or because if they’re a corporation, they can’t sell because consumers are pulling back. The thing about an economy is that it fits together. My spending is your income. Your spending is my income, so if we all pull back at the same time, we’re in a depression. The way to get out of it is for somebody to spend so that people can pay down their debt, so that we don’t have a depression. So that we have a chance to work out of whatever excesses we had in the past, and that somebody has to be the government.
We ended the Great Depression with a great program of government spending for an unfortunate reason. It was known as World War II…but when the war broke out in Europe, and we began our buildup that Great Depression that had been going on for ten years. People thought it would go on forever. Learned people stroked their chins and said there are no quick answers. In two years, employment rose 20%. That’s the equivalent of 26 million jobs today, the depression was over. We had full employment, and it never came back, or it didn’t come back until 2008, because people managed to pay down those debts, and we had a durable recovery."

Which is nice, but where does the extra money come from? Our government is already spending billions more a year into our domestic economy than it earns. Or are you suggesting we have a war, or, rather, let someone else have a war into which we sell arms and then pour materiel while not suffering any damage?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

meglome wrote: »

At any moment I'm expecting you to start claiming gravity doesn't exist as you can't see that either.

I have seen compelling scientific argument that it does not, in fact, exist. Something along the lines of its effects being explained by the principles of thermodynamics.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is nice, but where does the extra money come from? Our government is already spending billions more a year into our domestic economy than it earns. Or are you suggesting we have a war, or, rather, let someone else have a war into which we sell arms and then pour materiel while not suffering any damage?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think there is good argument for saying that we could attempt to negotiate further infrastructure loans/"gifts" from the EU or elsewhere to break ground on projects such as Luas BXD, Metro North and Dart Underground as a stimulus to get people working again. I recall a few months ago a very generous offer to Greece for this exact type of funding.