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

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

You are serious, aren't you?
Do you think it's in anyone's interest to see us struggle even more or even fail?
We have cards and we should be playing them.

You only need to look at Greece to see a country struggling more and more and where Europe watching them fail is now a very real prospect.

The setting up of the ESM is part of Europe's reponse to prevening countries from failing. But, if we don't want to avail of it, thats our responsibility.

Ozymandius2011

C14N wrote: »

So really you want to vote No just for the sake of being anti-authority? What do you think that will actually achieve?

In poll news, Yes seems to be coming out on top lately. From TodayFM [URL]news:[/URL]

The yes side led in every poll in Nice I but still lost. The yes side had a 60% lead before the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum. The DKs will decide the outcome.

gerryo777

beeftotheheels wrote: »

We do indeed, we have a pair of jokers a 2 of diamonds, a 3 of clubs and a 5 of hearts.

Doesn't really matter what the game is, that's a lousy hand so don't start betting your life savings on it.

Your right about the jokers!

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

You only need to look at Greece to see a country struggling more and more and where Europe watching them fail is now a very real prospect.

The setting up of the ESM is part of Europe's reponse to prevening countries from failing. But, if we don't want to avail of it, thats our responsibility.

Greece was a basket case before and shouldn't have been aloud join the EU in the first place.
We seem to be doing everything we're told and not getting a lot in return, apart from funding.
The reason private bank debt is tied to our sovereign debt is because merkel says that's the way it'll be.
The reason for that is to save her own political skin.
It's in europe's interest to deal properly with the debt situation all over but that mightn't suit her with elections coming up.

swampgas

gerryo777 wrote: »

We seem to be doing everything we're told and not getting a lot in return, apart from funding.

This is what I don't get - the funding is the most crucial thing we need, and not only that, it comes out of someone else's pocket.

Talk about ingratitude! It's not enough to lend us bazillions, we want more!

beeftotheheels

gerryo777 wrote: »

The reason private bank debt is tied to our sovereign debt is because merkel says that's the way it'll be.
The reason for that is to save her own political skin.

You have no evidence for this. Even if ones assumes (and I think it logical and thus likely) that pressure was put on Lenihan to save the banks, that pressure came from the ECB and not Merkel.

Merkel and Sarkozy talking about bondholder burning in Deauville is what led to us being locked out of the bond markets in late 2010. Merkel would much rather some investor face the risk than her taxpayers, it plays much better to the German voter.

However, for the most part the bond holders have been paid off and replaced with taxpayers. So there's not much more that can be done here, even if every one wanted to.

So now the only choice is Irish taxpayers or German taxpayers, and understandably Merkel has to prefer Irish to German taking the risk.

Hopefully Spain will result in the debate being refocused into national taxpayers or EU taxpayers when it comes to banking bailouts.

gerryo777

swampgas wrote: »

This is what I don't get - the funding is the most crucial thing we need, and not only that, it comes out of someone else's pocket.

Talk about ingratitude! It's not enough to lend us bazillions, we want more!

It's funding.

We don't get it for nothing and your right, it comes out of your pocket and my pocket at the end of the day.

But I suppose we should be grateful to europe for lending us money to save the private banking system.

Watch the Spanish banks next week, maybe that'll bring it to a head and a proper solution, and I don't know what that will be, will have to be found.

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

Greece was a basket case before and shouldn't have been aloud join the EU in the first place.

That may be, but the idea that we can hold the EU to ransom because they just can't afford to let us fail just isn't true. There comes some point where if we don't play ball, neither will they.

gerryo777 wrote: »

We seem to be doing everything we're told and not getting a lot in return, apart from funding.

Wasn't that the bailout deal? We get funding, and in return, we agree to a set of conditions.
You wan't somethng extra in return for complying with the terms of a deal?

gerryo777 wrote: »

The reason private bank debt is tied to our sovereign debt is because merkel says that's the way it'll be.
The reason for that is to save her own political skin.

I thought it was the ECB or even Tim Geithner. But it was Merkel all along.

gerryo777 wrote: »

It's in europe's interest to deal properly with the debt situation all over but that mightn't suit her with elections coming up.

If only she didn't have to placate the very people who have to actually pay for the EU bailout funds.

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

If only she didn't have to placate the very people who have to actually pay for the EU bailout funds.

Who pays the bill at the end of the day? the germans?

swampgas

gerryo777 wrote: »

It's funding.

We don't get it for nothing and your right, it comes out of your pocket and my pocket at the end of the day.

But I suppose we should be grateful to europe for lending us money to save the private banking system.

Watch the Spanish banks next week, maybe that'll bring it to a head and a proper solution, and I don't know what that will be, will have to be found.

Actually, the money we have been lent comes out of French, German, Italian, etc., pockets, and goes into ours.

It really isn't the private banking system we're borrowing to fund - most of what we're borrowing is going to fund our enormous budget deficit - i.e it's paying for the running of the country.

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who pays the bill at the end of the day? the germans?

For the ESM and the EFSM / EFSF, the German taxpayers are the biggest single contributors.

C14N

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who pays the bill at the end of the day? the germans?

Well it's a loan, so we pay at the end of the day, however far into the future that might be. The European taxpayers are paying it now though from what I gather.

When the ESM comes in, every country will contribute (even us). Germany and France will be paying 47% together though.

What I don't understand is why all the stable eastern and Scandinavian countries will want to ratify it. They will be paying into the pot and almost definitely not taking anything back out, yet they're all gung-ho for it. Can anyone explain this for me?

swampgas

C14N wrote: »

Well it's a loan, so we pay at the end of the day, however far into the future that might be. The European taxpayers are paying it now though from what I gather.

When the ESM comes in, every country will contribute (even us). Germany and France will be paying 47% together though.

What I don't understand is why all the stable eastern and Scandinavian countries will want to ratify it. They will be paying into the pot and almost definitely not taking anything back out, yet they're all gung-ho for it. Can anyone explain this for me?

Enlightened self-interest? It's not a zero-sum game you know.

Yes, they have to contribute to the fund, in return they get to operate in an environment which is (hopefully!) more stable, and which is likely to have better economic growth. All of which is good for business, and (in theory) better for their own economies.

Mance Rayder

I hope the people on social welfare who are intending to vote no understand where the social welfare payment comes from (ESM funding) and that they can kiss that goodbye if there is a 'No' victory. Social welfare cuts won't happen immediately but it will happen in the coming budgets because Ireland will be forced to borrow at higher rates than we could get if we vote yes.

Unfortunately working class council estates are SF strongholds and I feel the 'No' vote will prevail in such areas as they tend to buy SF and anti government / EU rhetoric hook line and sinker.

We don't need a protest vote now, we need intelligent informed voting.

Ozymandius2011

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I hope the people on social welfare who are intending to vote no understand where the social welfare payment comes from (ESM funding) and that they can kiss that goodbye if there is a 'No' victory. Social welfare cuts won't happen immediately but it will happen in the coming budgets because Ireland will be forced to borrow at higher rates than we could get if we vote yes.

Unfortunately working class council estates are SF strongholds and I feel the 'No' vote will prevail in such areas as they tend to buy SF and anti government / EU rhetoric hook line and sinker.

We don't need a protest vote now, we need intelligent informed voting.

I am on disability allowance and am voting no. Firstly, the govt can't make up its mind whether we need a second bailout. Secondly, the EFSF lasts until late 2013, by which time we will either be returning to the bondmarkets, or will have access to the ESM under a new treaty. Thirdly given the Trappist-Monk-type secrecy for the ESM enshrined in the ESM Treaty (interdependent with the Fiscal Compact), there is a danger the ESM will be subject to serious political/bureaucratic corruption, as explained this morning on "Marian Finucane" by Robert Ballagh. No to a European Sleaze Mechanism.

swampgas

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I am on disability allowance and am voting no.

Fair enough - you are obviously not putting self-interest ahead of the national interest.

Firstly, the govt can't make up its mind whether we need a second bailout.

Surely it's too soon to make that call for sure? A lot could happen between now and when we might need to access the ESM?

Secondly, the EFSF lasts until late 2013, by which time we will either be returning to the bondmarkets, or will have access to the ESM under a new treaty.

Suppose the bond markets want 8%, 9%, or higher?
What evidence is there that there will be a new treaty - will there be a new one just for us?

Thirdly given the Trappist-Monk-type secrecy for the ESM enshrined in the ESM Treaty (interdependent with the Fiscal Compact), there is a danger the ESM will be subject to serious political/bureaucratic corruption, as explained this morning on "Marian Finucane" by Robert Ballagh. No to a European Sleaze Mechanism.

No comment - IMO that's veering into CT territory.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I am on disability allowance and am voting no. Firstly, the govt can't make up its mind whether we need a second bailout. Secondly, the EFSF lasts until late 2013, by which time we will either be returning to the bondmarkets, or will have access to the ESM under a new treaty. Thirdly given the Trappist-Monk-type secrecy for the ESM enshrined in the ESM Treaty (interdependent with the Fiscal Compact), there is a danger the ESM will be subject to serious political/bureaucratic corruption, as explained this morning on "Marian Finucane" by Robert Ballagh. No to a European Sleaze Mechanism.

Allow me to paraphrase.

You're voting No because
1. The Government can't see into the future
2. You can (and the future's bright) and
3. Because the ESM is set up to mirror the IMF of which we're already a member, and which has not, last time I checked, descended into "political/ bureaucratic corruption" on account of their staff being able to do their jobs without being hauled up in court by irate taxpayers in programme countries.

I really don't know what to say.

Happyman42

swampgas wrote: »

Fair enough - you are obviously not putting self-interest ahead of the national interest.

I would imagine he/she isn't responding to the scare tactics maybe?






[/QUOTE]No comment - IMO that's veering into CT territory.[/QUOTE]

IYO where EU monies corruptly diverted before? :rolleyes: No transperancy attracts people with no scruples....look at the Vatican! :rolleyes:

Jeff the Yank

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

The money isn't real. The money that was being loaned to the builders through the Irish banks, through the German banks wasn't real. It was created out of nothing the same way that the money that was used to cover the bets on the bets on the equity swaps on Wall Street wasn't real until the margins were called. The Irish banking debt only became real when Cowan decided to bow to the German and French banks and offer up the Irish coffers to bail them out of their betting madness.

Ireland could have handed that debt to the bond holders in Germany and France and made them take the brunt of the crises on their larger shoulders.

My answer is, it doesn't matter how much "debt" is accumulated, the money isn't real. It can all be taken care of with creative accounting and government forecasting over longer periods of time. Huge fiscal deficits are only a problem if the cost of maintaining them is too high, so that cost needs to be as close to 0 as possible and that could and should be done by those loaning us the money so we can stand up on our feet again.

Keep in mind that the government is the only entity that can pump money into the economy when the economy is in free fall. Corporations and Banks wont do it. They are out to make money, but cant because the consumer base is broke! The government can try and stay fiscally sound but they cant tax their way out because their tax base is shrinking. However, if you can pump enough money in, the free fall slows and finally ends. Keep doing it long enough and people start spending their government generated employment checks with the corporations. The corporations start creating more supply to meet demand and more people get hired. They start spending their money too and the economic motor starts spinning all on its own again.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

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

The money isn't real. The money that was being loaned to the builders through the Irish banks, through the German banks wasn't real. It was created out of nothing the same way that the money that was used to cover the bets on the bets on the equity swaps on Wall Street wasn't real until the margins were called. The Irish banking debt only became real when Cowan decided to bow to the German and French banks and offer up the Irish coffers to bail them out of their betting madness.

Ireland could have handed that debt to the bond holders in Germany and France and made them take the brunt of the crises on their larger shoulders.

My answer is, it doesn't matter how much "debt" is accumulated, the money isn't real. It can all be taken care of with creative accounting and government forecasting over longer periods of time. Huge fiscal deficits are only a problem if the cost of maintaining them is too high, so that cost needs to be as close to 0 as possible and that could and should be done by those loaning us the money so we can stand up on our feet again.

Keep in mind that the government is the only entity that can pump money into the economy when the economy is in free fall. Corporations and Banks wont do it. They are out to make money, but cant because the consumer base is broke! The government can try and stay fiscally sound but they cant tax their way out because their tax base is shrinking. However, if you can pump enough money in, the free fall slows and finally ends. Keep doing it long enough and people start spending their government generated employment checks with the corporations. The corporations start creating more supply to meet demand and more people get hired. They start spending their money too and the economic motor starts spinning all on its own again.

You seem to have researched this, who, exactly, were the French and German banks, and how much were they given?

swampgas

Happyman42 wrote: »

I would imagine he/she isn't responding to the scare tactics maybe?

IYO where EU monies corruptly diverted before? :rolleyes: No transperancy attracts people with no scruples....look at the Vatican! :rolleyes:

Have you a better argument to make than a few throw away lines and some roll-eyes?

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=793&n=705&a=3510

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189

cordially,
Scofflaw

But what happens to that money now? It just disappears into the ether along with the "shelved" MN project?

Jeff the Yank

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You seem to have researched this, who, exactly, were the French and German banks, and how much were they given?

Its part conjecture and part reading articles like this.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40315265/Here_s_the_Real_Story_Behind_the_Bailout_of_Ireland

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/23/131538931/how-the-irish-bank-bailout-shook-the-world

The conjecture is thus...

Cowen could not possibly have been so stupid as to just throw the entire treasure of Ireland into the blackhole that is and was the Irish banks. Someone had to push him. The only folks with sufficient pressure on Ireland to push for something that stupid would be the folks who stood to loose all those billions. Turns out our biggest lenders were Germany, the U.K. and France in that order.

If in fact Brian Cowen was just that stupid then I weep for Ireland.

beeftotheheels

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

Turns out our biggest lenders were Germany, the U.K. and France in that order.

IFSC entities (Depfa and Ormond Quay and the like) would be in the BIS numbers while actually having sod all to do with our banking system.

The German portion is completely overstated because of this.

In terms of exposure to our banks i.e. the bondholders we "could" have burned US and UK dwarf every one else.

Anglo was 70% funded with deposits, so in relative terms, there weren't all that many bond holders we could have burned, foreign or domestic.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You seem to have researched this, who, exactly, were the French and German banks, and how much were they given?

Its part conjecture and part reading articles like this.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40315265/Here_s_the_Real_Story_Behind_the_Bailout_of_Ireland

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/23/131538931/how-the-irish-bank-bailout-shook-the-world

The conjecture is thus...

Cowen could not possibly have been so stupid as to just throw the entire treasure of Ireland into the blackhole that is and was the Irish banks. Someone had to push him. The only folks with sufficient pressure on Ireland to push for something that stupid would be the folks who stood to loose all those billions. Turns out our biggest lenders were Germany, the U.K. and France in that order.

If in fact Brian Cowen was just that stupid then I weep for Ireland.

Was expecting some actual evidence, I am disappoint.

Where did you get the detail that German banks were the biggest lenders to guaranteed banks? More conjecture or something based in reality?

Not possible that the brians actually believed that the guarantee would never be called in then? Having been assured by the likes of Fitzgerald that Anglo was sound, pulling off the "cheapest bailout in history"?

Why ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence?

Good loser

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Thirdly given the Trappist-Monk-type secrecy for the ESM enshrined in the ESM Treaty (interdependent with the Fiscal Compact), there is a danger the ESM will be subject to serious political/bureaucratic corruption, as explained this morning on "Marian Finucane" by Robert Ballagh. No to a European Sleaze Mechanism.

His (Robert Ballaghs) comment this morning on Marian Finucane enraged Colm McCarthy and RB was forced into admitting there was no evidence whatsoever for his assertion.

It's misleading of you to reference one without the other. (It's called the whole truth)

Ted Mosby

Good loser wrote: »

His (Robert Ballaghs) comment this morning on Marian Finucane enraged Colm McCarthy and RB was forced into admitting there was no evidence whatsoever for his assertion.

It's misleading of you to reference one without the other. (It's called the whole truth)

That would be Robert Ballagh, who campaigned for a No vote on the Good Friday Agreement and of the "Irish National Congress" and "National Movement".

It would be nice to be rich enough to be insulated from the consequences of a No vote.

Ozymandius2011

Good loser wrote: »

His (Robert Ballaghs) comment this morning on Marian Finucane enraged Colm McCarthy and RB was forced into admitting there was no evidence whatsoever for his assertion.

It's misleading of you to reference one without the other. (It's called the whole truth)

I don't remember such a refutation.

Wild Bill

K-9 wrote: »

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

The assumptions may well be "contained within" the projections; the question I asked is "What are they"?

Still no reply. And I don't "moan". I ask questions. :cool:

(And don't get replies)

Wild Bill

Godge wrote: »

Unbelievable. You really don't have a clue.

Etcetera.

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

Why don't you tell me what GDP growth you are assuming for the next five years and what assumptions you are making about Government revenues and the further bank guarantee-related costs?

Tell me that and I'll give an opinion on whether you have a clue or not.