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

Wild Bill

Scofflaw wrote: »

Here's the public debt history of the State since 1990:

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.

Yes, we grew the economy at almost 10% for a decade! Because a key once-off factor came into play (we had catch-up potential with GDP per capita at 70% of the EU average (rather than the current 120% (or whatever). The Western world was entering a 15 tear boom period.

None of this will be repeated in any rational scenario.

You have become fixated on the notion that by "unplayable" I mean only we won't repay the actual principle. (We won't because we can't - not because we'll choose not to!)

What I am saying is that the interest on that debt will become unrepayble in any likely political scenario. The interest forms part of the debt and that will keep on growing faster than either Government revenue or GDP growth.

And the debt itself will continue growing for many years; you've got that bit right.

dvpower

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)

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I don't remember such a refutation.

Ballagh said that his worry was that the ESM would be run by 'unelected bankers, the very people that got into the mess in the first place'. Mc Carthy accused him of perpetrating straight untruths and said there was no provision in the treaty that the people wouild be selected from bankers. Ballagh said he had 'different information'. Mc Carthy pressed him on it and Ballagh changed his mind to say it would be run by 'unelected tehnocrats'. He went on to say that because of the lack of scrutiny of the ESM it was a recipe for corruption and disaster. Mc Carthy said it was 'off the wall stuff'.

Ozymandius2011

dvpower wrote: »

Ballagh said that his worry was that the ESM would be run by 'unelected bankers, the very people that got into the mess in the first place'. Mc Carthy accused him of perpetrating straight untruths and said there was no provision in the treaty that the people wouild be selected from bankers. Ballagh said he had 'different information'. Mc Carthy pressed him on it and Ballagh changed his mind to say it would be run by 'unelected tehnocrats'. He went on to say that because of the lack of scrutiny of the ESM it was a recipe for corruption and disaster. Mc Carthy said it was 'off the wall stuff'.

That hardly constitues a refutation on Ballagh's part, and it has been acknowledged including by Scofflaw (replying to another member) that the ESM will have immunity from disclosures without its consent to the media. Ballagh was correct to make the point that is fertile ground for corruption.

Wild Bill

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that's a predictable response, and irrelevant. Our bank bailout was our government's choice - that's why Finna Fáil aren't in government any more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have pointed out that "our government" lacked the democratic legitimacy to do that. But you keep debating as if that is a non-issue.

The current Regime were voted in with specific commitments to not continue the FF policy; they reneged on as soon as they got in - thus ruining their own legitimacy (and seriously damaging the legitimacy of our democratic system).

The fantasy scenarios produced on their spreadsheets by largely the same economists and institutions who sleepwalked to the disaster are divorced from political and economic reality.

The current debt will be unsustainable under any realistic Govt revenue, bank bailout costs, economic growth or interest rate scenarios.

Period.

funnights74

Nein, Everything they tell us is either a lie or a mistake, the list is endless, Enough of the ecb and those nameless eurocrats dictating to us at their every whim, it is they who loaned to the banks who loaned it on to people who had no chance of paying it back, and when everything went pear shaped we get saddled with the bill, i personally never lived beyond my means but like many others i find myself paying back someone else's debts,they feed us with scare tactics in case we refuse to jump as high as they want us to. No doubt if we vote no we will be marched to the top of the class again and chastised and sent away to "do it right the next time".( Ring any bells?)
Most annoyingly i find it ironic that we should actually have to pass a law which obliges future governments to pass a balanced and responsible budget, so much for electing public representatives who are willing to budget within the means available ,we have politicians campaigning endlessly persuading us this is what is best for the country, i can't believe they don't see the Irony in this.

porsche boy

vote no.

dvpower

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That hardly constitues a refutation on Ballagh's part, and it has been acknowledged including by Scofflaw (replying to another member) that the ESM will have immunity from disclosures without its consent to the media. Ballagh was correct to make the point that is fertile ground for corruption.

Ballagh was forced to change his mind on who he said would on the board of the ESM by McCarthy. I'm not sure that Ballagh meant 'bankers' literally - its just a term he seems to use as shorthand for 'undesirables'.

On the point of possible corruption, it not possible to refute that since its just an opinion. McCarthy just described his opinion on that point as 'off the wall stuff'.

meglome

funnights74 wrote: »

Nein, Everything they tell us is either a lie or a mistake, the list is endless, Enough of the ecb and those nameless eurocrats dictating to us at their every whim, it is they who loaned to the banks who loaned it on to people who had no chance of paying it back, and when everything went pear shaped we get saddled with the bill, i personally never lived beyond my means but like many others i find myself paying back someone else's debts,they feed us with scare tactics in case we refuse to jump as high as they want us to. No doubt if we vote no we will be marched to the top of the class again and chastised and sent away to "do it right the next time".( Ring any bells?)

The word nonsense springs to mind.

funnights74 wrote: »

Most annoyingly i find it ironic that we should actually have to pass a law which obliges future governments to pass a balanced and responsible budget, so much for electing public representatives who are willing to budget within the means available ,we have politicians campaigning endlessly persuading us this is what is best for the country, i can't believe they don't see the Irony in this.

Oh there's irony all right. The irony is we as a nation repeatedly voted for the polices that led us here. We have a track record of electing people who promise the most and we don't ask too many question about how we are going to pay for it. We got the government we deserved but we didn't like it, and we certainly didn't like the consequences.

We have shown we are incapable of keeping our house in order for more than a few years at a time yet you want to reject a fix for this.

The uber nationalism over any sense from some people is starting to get on my nerves.

Inquitus

The thing is no matter the outcome we will get austerity, and there's a bloody good chance that if we vote no we will get more austerity not less.

All these signs around the place saying vote no, vote against water charges and the household tax, are completely disingenuous, we will have both of those no matter what we vote. And a vote for no is a vote against austerity, more lies, we have to balance the books, and the only way to do that is tax more, spend less or a combination of the two, austerity is here to stay.

Wild Bill

Inquitus wrote: »

And a vote for no is a vote against austerity, more lies, we have to balance the books, and the only way to do that is tax more, spend less or a combination of the two, austerity is here to stay.

There is an alternative route to renewed prosperity and jobs, but as you say it won't avoid "austerity" - to put it mildly!

But a "yes" vote will condemn us the endless decline and delaying any chance of recovery for decades. (Not so much the "yes" itself per se, that can always be reversed) - but the crazed ECB policies will be supported and the implosion or reform of the euro will be delayed by a yes vote.

Vote No to help eliminate the cancer and speed the recovery.

Inquitus

Wild Bill wrote: »

There is an alternative route to renewed prosperity and jobs, but as you say it won't avoid "austerity" - to put it mildly!

But a "yes" vote will condemn us the endless decline and delaying any chance of recovery for decades. (Not so much the "yes" itself per se, that can always be reversed) - but the crazed ECB policies will be supported and the implosion or reform of the euro will be delayed by a yes vote.

Vote No to help eliminate the cancer and speed the recovery.

Granted voting no may bring short to medium term pain but speed recovery at the end of the day, I have no issue with that argument. My main bugbear is that the no campaign is based on lies and scaremongering largely. If it was based around the opinions you espouse above I wouldn't mind.

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

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.

Eh, have you read the thread? In case you missed it, here is my response.

Godge wrote: »

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.

What do you know, even though I coouldn't be bothered, someone else dug out Seamus Coffey's post for you.

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

Notice that Seamus Coffey references the IMF projections for our economy over the next few years for the first part of his projection. Maybe you are a greater economic mind than the IMF economists or Seamus Coffey, but if so, about time you provided some evidence other than tired 2008 rhetoric.

Oh, and here is one of Scofflaw's many posts that have demonstrated the sustainable nature of the position that we find ourselves in.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Finally, do you remember this post of yours

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:



(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 have asked you several times now to produce the poster that has said that the debt is repayable. Every single poster that I can find references the fact that the debt is sustainable as we grow and inflate our way out of the problem. I even tried to show you how it worked on an individual level.

Are you a serious poster or just someone trying to wind people up? Produce the evidence that anyone said the debt was repayable.

Godge

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

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.

(1) Yes, Cowen was that stupid

(2) He had the best of advice, meetings with Seanie Fitzpatrick in golf clubs and Lenihan's late-night consultations with McWilliams that together led to the bank bailout. All of the boys were too clever for themselves.

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

The current debt will be unsustainable under any realistic Govt revenue, bank bailout costs, economic growth or interest rate scenarios.

Period.

Not one serious economists has produced figures to back up this statement of yours. Well, certainly I have scoured the internet and failed to find one.

Maybe you could show the sources that seem to give you such confidence about this.

K-9

Wild Bill wrote: »

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)

They are in the article and related links.

Wild Bill

Godge wrote: »

I have asked you several times now to produce the poster that has said that the debt is repayable.

I have dealt with that.

Every single poster that I can find references the fact that the debt is sustainable as we grow and inflate our way out of the problem. I even tried to show you how it worked on an individual level.

So, you are saying that nobody, except me, says the dept is unsustainable?! :rolleyes:

As for "showing me" how the national debt is "sustainable" based on some guy borrowing 400k - the exercise is so unrelated to the societal and political and economic issues relating to sovereign debt I'm leaning towards the view that you are, indeed, clueless.

Are you a serious poster or just someone trying to wind people up?

Very serious. Which is more than I can say for the fantasy that the debt is sustainable.

Wild Bill

K-9 wrote: »

They are in the article and related links.

Then why not simply quote them?

(I can't see them in the article, btw)

A link for Godge:

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/26092011-irelands-debt-overhang.html

I guess my search engine is better than yours? That took about 5 seconds.

antoobrien

Wild Bill wrote: »

Then why not simply quote them?

(I can't see them in the article, btw)

A link for Godge:

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/26092011-irelands-debt-overhang.html

I guess my search engine is better than yours? That took about 5 seconds.

Bill - that includes a lot of debt that isn't Irish (the corporate debt) - which undermines the "findings" of the article.

C14N

funnights74 wrote: »

Most annoyingly i find it ironic that we should actually have to pass a law which obliges future governments to pass a balanced and responsible budget, so much for electing public representatives who are willing to budget within the means available

So its better to say "they should be doing this anyway" and reject a law that actually forces it to happen? I can't see how you reasoned that out. Recent history has shown that we have elected people who absolutely did not budget within the mean available, it sounds like you'd prefer to wait for another disaster to happen and then complain about it instead of prevent it altogether.

Inquitus wrote: »

The thing is no matter the outcome we will get austerity, and there's a bloody good chance that if we vote no we will get more austerity not less.

All these signs around the place saying vote no, vote against water charges and the household tax, are completely disingenuous, we will have both of those no matter what we vote. And a vote for no is a vote against austerity, more lies, we have to balance the books, and the only way to do that is tax more, spend less or a combination of the two, austerity is here to stay.

Very true. I see more signs up now calling it "The Bankers' Treaty", basically adding in another scary, unrelated buzzword to get people to vote against it. What could be next? The Racism Treaty? The Death Treaty? The Rainy Weather Treaty?

PopeBuckfastXVI

C14N wrote: »

Very true. I see more signs up now calling it "The Bankers' Treaty", basically adding in another scary, unrelated buzzword to get people to vote against it. What could be next? The Racism Treaty? The Death Treaty? The Rainy Weather Treaty?

Haha, what next indeed? 'Rain ruins your picnic, vote no to the precipitation treaty!', 'Sick of being stuck in Traffic? Say NO! to the fat cats until they sort it out!', 'No Euro Quarter Finals? NO DEAL!', 'THE BUS IS LATE, VOTE NO!'

Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

Bill - that includes a lot of debt that isn't Irish (the corporate debt) - which undermines the "findings" of the article.

Ireland's debt position is far better represented in terms of who owes it, and their net position, which information is available from the CSO. Our position at the end of last year was:

|Assets|Liabilities|Net|Assets|Liabilities|Net
General_Government|4.6|102.1|-97.5|5.3|103.4|-98.1
Monetary_Authority|19.1|123.3|-104.3|19|120.5|-101.4
Monetary_Financial_Institutions*|881.9|834|47.9|800.3|752.4|47.9
Other_Financial_Intermediaries*|1449|1378.8|70.2|1607.4|1542.3|65.1
Non-Financial_Companies|233|297.4|-64.4|238|311|-73
Total|2587.6|2735.6|-148|2670|2829.5|-159.5

A couple of points that are little appreciated:

General Government foreign assets (including assets of the NPRF) increased by €0.7bn to €5.3bn in the quarter while liabilities increased by €1.3bn to €103.4bn in the same period - see Table 1b.

The government actually have assets to balance against the public debt - in fact, they have rather more than is stated there, because that doesn't include cash in hand. From a talk by Seamus Coffey, the government actually has about €18bn.

Within the commercial financial sector (i.e. MFI and OFI), IFSC enterprises accounted for a very high proportion of the sector’s overall foreign assets and liabilities. At the end of December 2011, IFSC assets abroad amounted to €2,175bn or 90% of the sector’s foreign assets (and 81% of Ireland’s total foreign assets); IFSC liabilities at €2,152bn represented almost 94% of the commercial financial sector aggregate (and almost 76% of Ireland’s total foreign liabilities). IFSC enterprises therefore showed a net asset position at the end of December 2011 of €23bn - see Table 2.

The IFSC constitutes three quarters of Irish foreign debt, rendering any claims based on simple totals utterly meaningless, even before one gets on to the existence of assets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dvpower

Wild Bill wrote: »

Then why not simply quote them?

(I can't see them in the article, btw)

A link for Godge:

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/26092011-irelands-debt-overhang.html

I guess my search engine is better than yours? That took about 5 seconds.

That article refers to Household, Corporate and Government debt.

On the government debt, the data he uses comes from a reply to a PQ from Finance which has government debt peaking at 118% of GDP before falling back - exactly the same figure provided earlier by Scofflaw, where he showed that we have in the past sustained that level of government debt as a % of tax receipts.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

That article refers to Household, Corporate and Government debt.

On the government debt, the data he uses comes from a reply to a PQ from Finance which has government debt peaking at 118% of GDP before falling back - exactly the same figure provided earlier by Scofflaw, where he showed that we have in the past sustained that level of government debt as a % of tax receipts.

The debts are not in isolation.......especially now with the banks tied to the state. The debts are paid by the same populace.

We never had such high debts before

Pedant

My late granny had an old saying "If you don't know what it is, don't buy it."

So I'll be voting NO because I haven't a clue what it's about or it's implications. I don't buy the whole "Vote YES for Jobs & Stability" lark. They're not informing the public what the treaty is really about. And before anyone says "Oh well you should research it yourself", most of non-politicos don't have the time. I've also been hearing that they're going to make us vote again if we vote NO this time. I say people should continue to vote NO until the government takes NO for an answer.

The democracy that our ancestors fought for has no meaning in this country anymore.

meglome

Pedant wrote: »

My late granny had an old saying "If you don't know what it is, don't buy it."

So I'll be voting NO because I haven't a clue what it's about or it's implications. I don't buy the whole "Vote YES for Jobs & Stability" lark. They're not informing the public what the treaty is really about. And before anyone says "Oh well you should research it yourself", most of non-politicos don't have the time. I've also been hearing that they're going to make us vote again if we vote NO this time. I say people should continue to vote NO until the government takes NO for an answer.

Sorry don't agree with that, if you don't know what's in it and don't know what the consequences of a Yes or no vote are you should abstain from voting. Not buying a product should be pretty consequence free but voting no isn't.

Pedant wrote: »

The democracy that our ancestors fought for has no meaning in this country anymore.

How do you figure?

leggit

Pedant wrote: »

My late granny had an old saying "If you don't know what it is, don't buy it."

So I'll be voting NO because I haven't a clue what it's about or it's implications. I don't buy the whole "Vote YES for Jobs & Stability" lark. They're not informing the public what the treaty is really about. And before anyone says "Oh well you should research it yourself", most of non-politicos don't have the time. I've also been hearing that they're going to make us vote again if we vote NO this time. I say people should continue to vote NO until the government takes NO for an answer.

The democracy that our ancestors fought for has no meaning in this country anymore.

It's really not that difficult to read about what the treaty actually is???

I don't really understand the "I'm voting no because I don't know what it is" argument? If you don't understand what it is then you probably shouldn't vote on it at all?

Your quote at the beginning doesn't really translate well in terms of voting

PopeBuckfastXVI

Pedant wrote: »

I've also been hearing that they're going to make us vote again if we vote NO this time. I say people should continue to vote NO until the government takes NO for an answer.

Ironically, the governmant has been categorical that they will not run the referendum again if there is a 'no' vote. The only people claiming there will be a second vote are people who are calling for a 'no' vote on the basis that we can vote again if we need to access the ESM. So it's actually the 'no' side who will be responsible for a second referendum in the event of a no to this one, as that seems to be a key demand of a sizeable section of the 'no' campaign.

As regards the treaty itself, why don't you ask a few questions on these boards, you might find you can definitively make up your mind?

I'd start by putting forward a couple of key concerns, maybe there's some things you've read from either 'yes' or 'no' campaigners that you'd like to know the truth of?

ec18

I'm leaning slightly more to the no side then yes purely based on that although the text of the current treaty may be fixed there is the possibility of amendments being added, that we won't get a chance to vote on........my view on this is no but come back to me when you've the growth pact finalised and gotten rid of some of the more vague passages.

Pedant

leggit wrote: »

Pedant wrote: »

My late granny had an old saying "If you don't know what it is, don't buy it."

So I'll be voting NO because I haven't a clue what it's about or it's implications. I don't buy the whole "Vote YES for Jobs & Stability" lark. They're not informing the public what the treaty is really about. And before anyone says "Oh well you should research it yourself", most of non-politicos don't have the time. I've also been hearing that they're going to make us vote again if we vote NO this time. I say people should continue to vote NO until the government takes NO for an answer.

The democracy that our ancestors fought for has no meaning in this country anymore.

It's really not that difficult to read about what the treaty actually is???

I don't really understand the "I'm voting no because I don't know what it is" argument? If you don't understand what it is then you probably shouldn't vote on it at all?

Your quote at the beginning doesn't really translate well in terms of voting

If the majority of people don't know what it's about, then why ask them to vote for it? Should voting be reserved for an elite enlightened few? If this treaty has an impact in any way on my future then I think I should vote in it and I'm voting NO because I don't think something that a majority of people don't know about should go ahead.

leggit

Pedant wrote: »

If the majority of people don't know what it's about, then why ask them to vote for it? Should voting be reserved for an elite enlightened few? If this treaty has an impact in any way on my future then I think I should vote in it and I'm voting NO because I don't think something that a majority of people don't know about should go ahead.

All I'm saying is that you have every right to go ahead and vote but you should take responsibility to know what you are voting on.