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

oscarBravo

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.

That would be a compelling argument if you were 100% certain that voting 'no' had no consequences whatsoever. By your own admission, you don't understand the issues, so you can't make that argument, so your logic defeats itself.

If you genuinely don't understand the issues, and are not interested in educating yourself, the only intellectually honest thing to do is abstain.

meglome

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.

Sorry but not seeing the logic here. What you're saying is fine if a no vote has no consequences but it does have consequences. So by voting no you could be helping to shoot us all in the foot. If you don't know the only option should be to abstain.

meglome

ec18 wrote: »

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.

It obviously up to you how you vote. But I will say that the only thing we have to vote on is the treaty in front of us. I think it's very dangerous to vote no to something that could... might... sorta... be changed. One thing we can say as a fact is that no changes exist now. We all should vote now on what we know now, the future can be dealt with in the future.

RandomName2

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.

Lisbon was notoriously complicated and the average voter couldn't really be expected to understand the whole thing.

This treaty however is pretty straightforward. Sure the government is doing its usually bulls*** job of explaining it, but you could easily just take ten minutes to read it yourself!

swampgas

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.

Another way to look at it is this: the rest of the Eurozone are setting up a special insurance fund (the ESM) in case any member needs a bail out. They want Ireland to join in, but for some odd reason we need a referendum first. We were part of the negotiations that created the treaty, so it's not like it is being imposed by someone else.

So, your choices:
(1) Vote Yes, and go along with the other Euro countries, have access to the insurance
(2) Vote No, and go it alone, and hope we can find some other way to roll over our debts in 2014, so we don't have to have even greater austerity.

This is one of those cases where a No vote does NOT mean keeping the status quo - because the rest of the Eurozone will just move on without us.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Our household debt is worryingly high, but falling, and still represents only a small proportion of net household assets.

Much of the corporate debt has been shown to be only nominally associated with Ireland.

planet1

What does this all mean, will saying yes force the Government to have a more equal society, and by that I mean, will the Goverment slash public servants wages by half and their pensions. When will they state or uderstand that if there is no one working in the private sector, then there is no money to pay the public sector. Roll on the day when honesty is the best policy. So yes and no

golfball37

We are not voting on the ESM treaty?

We are voting on the Fiscal Stability treaty.

swampgas

golfball37 wrote: »

We are not voting on the ESM treaty?

We are voting on the Fiscal Stability treaty.

Access to the ESM requires the Stability Treaty to be passed.

meglome

Might be useful

Myth: we could vote No and still be sure of getting money from somewhere for a second bailout, if we need it

Reality: the rules are clear. Countries which do not implement the treaty are not entitled to avail of funding under the European Stability Mechanism, the permanent bailout fund.

Those who argue otherwise believe that we would not be let "go bust" and that money would be found or the rules changed. There is no way of knowing this in advance.

Another issue is that the money available from the ESM will - likely the current EU funding - be available at an attractive rate. Even if further funds were available, there is no guarantee they would be at this rate, or that they would not include other terms and conditions.

Sources believe it is unlikely that the IMF would lend to Ireland on its own. This is because we have already borrowed a lot from the IMF - well above the normal amount it would lend a country of Ireland's size - and the IMF wants the security of lending alongside EU countries to increase its chance of getting its money back.

.....

Myth: the country would be run from Brussels

Reality: Irish governments would continue, within the rules, to be able to decide whether to tax and where to spend. However, it is true that the EU Commission will have an increasingly important role in monitoring and overseeing member state budgets and recommending action when things go wrong. It will also be the body with which countries with excessive deficits or debts will have to agree adjustment programmes.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News+Focus/Myth+vs+reality%3A+the+facts+behind+the+fiscal+treaty/id/e5be1f99-09e4-452e-92ab-e303cb2359d0

Scofflaw

ec18 wrote: »

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.

While there will be almost certainly be a growth pact, it will be separate from the Treaty, and the Treaty text will not be changed. So there is no point in voting No to the Treaty on the basis of what might be in another treaty which doesn't actually change this one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

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.

You are voting on whether or not (to modify the constitution) to allow the politicos - who are supposed to have the time to review the treaty - to ratify the treaty if they choose to do so.

You do not get to vote on the merits of the treaty itself - the Oireachtas gets to do that instead.

golfball37

swampgas wrote: »

Access to the ESM requires the Stability Treaty to be passed.

Access to anything that doesn't exist always depends on something else. However we are not voting on this despite it being stated unchallenged a few posts up.

We are voting to enshrine bugetary controls into our consistution. I wish this would be whats being debated and not the Red Herrings we hear from both sides.

Scofflaw

golfball37 wrote: »

Access to anything that doesn't exist always depends on something else. However we are not voting on this despite it being stated unchallenged a few posts up.

We are voting to enshrine bugetary controls into our consistution. I wish this would be whats being debated and not the Red Herrings we hear from both sides.

We're not voting to enshrine budgetary controls in our Constitution either, though. That's why they're not in the amendment you'll be voting on.

We're voting on whether to allow the government to ratify the Treaty and put the budgetary controls into domestic law, not into the Constitution.

The government seems to have pushed quite hard for the original idea of putting such controls into constitutions to be watered down precisely to avoid putting the rules into the Constitution itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

swampgas wrote: »

Access to the ESM requires the Stability Treaty to be passed.

That's what the preamble says but Michael Noonan admitted a few days ago that the ECJ has in the past ruled that premables have less legal value than the body of the Treaty.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That's what the preamble says but Michael Noonan admitted a few days ago that the ECJ has in the past ruled that premables have less legal value than the body of the Treaty.

You're being blatantly dishonest by peddling this argument. Not only have you failed to come up with an ECJ ruling that supports it - and you don't get to argue from authority that Michael Noonan has said it, unless you unconditionally accept everything Noonan says - there's no reason in logic for believing that the other member states who have signed up in good faith to these treaties will cheerfully accept such bad-faith reasoning from Ireland.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That's what the preamble says but Michael Noonan admitted a few days ago that the ECJ has in the past ruled that premables have less legal value than the body of the Treaty.

Huh? We have the treaty text. We have the preamble. Where they directly contradict each other then a Court would likely find that the treaty text would prevail (which is what Michael Noonan acknowledged).

However, if we need a second bailout, we will not have the required 2 odd years to take the ESM and other Members before the Court of Justice. We will not have that time when we need €14bn odd of cash in 2014 to rollover debt and avoid a default, and to keep the show on the road in terms of paying welfare and salaries.

So we cannot gamble on a perceived contradiction (which I don't myself see) resulting in a Court deciding in our favor, two years after we've defaulted and returned to the Punt.

It is possible that SF might be legally right here, I disagree but I leave open the possibility. But that they haven't mentioned the time delay in bringing the matter to Court means that they have not explained the risks of hoping that a future Court action might alter the result.

What a Court might or might not decide doesn't matter a jot if you don't have the time to go to Court.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That's what the preamble says but Michael Noonan admitted a few days ago that the ECJ has in the past ruled that premables have less legal value than the body of the Treaty.

I would recommend that you read this: http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/05/22/that-other-treaty-ratifying-the-european-stability-mechanism-treaty/

No provision of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty has received more attention, and indeed has been the subject such vexed political rhetoric. The final draft of the Treaty was amended to insert into the recital section a provision making access to the ESM conditional on ratifying the Fiscal Treaty. I first noted some confusion in Sinn Fein’s position when Deputy Pearse Doherty appeared vexed in a recent Dail debate as to why the requirement is placed in the recital (preambular section) of the Treaty and questioned whether it actually was a legal obligation. This claim was reiterated yesterday by a statement by Sinn Fein, which claimed that Articles 3 and 12, and not the recital, were the grounds of Ireland’s obligation. As a result the Board of the ESM would be free to lend to us if necessary to preserve the stability of the Eurozone.

Significantly, Deputy Doherty’s statement in the Dail relied on a European Court of Justice ruling that recitals cannot ground obligations. However, in doing so he was incorrectly using EU law rather than public international law, which governs this intergovernmental treaty. There is not doubt that it is not a clause of the Treaty, and not a fresh obligation. Instead the recital functions as a specific example of the power to impose conditions on bailouts given to the ESM in Article 3. It fills out the interpretation of that Article, with the result that legally the ESM cannot give us funding without ratification. This reflects a common position in public international law which, when interpreting treaties, values not merely the text, but also the purposes for which the Treaty was laid down. A preamble in an intergovernmental treaty is given such a role in interpretation of the under Article 31(2) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. The interpretation is further supported by the fact virtually ever State made it clear their intention was to establish such conditionality.

The short version of that is that while the Preamble itself cannot create an obligation (as, say, under our Article 29.4.10) it is given due weight as a guide to the intentions of the Treaty's creators. In this case there is an article in the Treaty that states conditionality will apply, without saying what conditions, and a statement in the Preamble that ratification of the Fiscal Treaty is part of the conditions.

The intention of the authors is thereby clear, while full legal force is given to the ratification requirement in the Preamble by the Article on conditionality. There is therefore no contradiction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Huh? We have the treaty text. We have the preamble. Where they directly contradict each other then a Court would likely find that the treaty text would prevail (which is what Michael Noonan acknowledged).

However, if we need a second bailout, we will not have the required 2 odd years to take the ESM and other Members before the Court of Justice. We will not have that time when we need €14bn odd of cash in 2014 to rollover debt and avoid a default, and to keep the show on the road in terms of paying welfare and salaries.

So we cannot gamble on a perceived contradiction (which I don't myself see) resulting in a Court deciding in our favor, two years after we've defaulted and returned to the Punt.

It is possible that SF might be legally right here, I disagree but I leave open the possibility. But that they haven't mentioned the time delay in bringing the matter to Court means that they have not explained the risks of hoping that a future Court action might alter the result.

What a Court might or might not decide doesn't matter a jot if you don't have the time to go to Court.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would recommend that you read this: http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/05/22/that-other-treaty-ratifying-the-european-stability-mechanism-treaty/



The short version of that is that while the Preamble itself cannot create an obligation (as, say, under our Article 29.4.10) it is given due weight as a guide to the intentions of the Treaty's creators. In this case there is an article in the Treaty that states conditionality will apply, without saying what conditions, and a statement in the Preamble that ratification of the Fiscal Treaty is part of the conditions.

The intention of the authors is thereby clear, while full legal force is given to the ratification requirement in the Preamble by the Article on conditionality. There is therefore no contradiction.

...all of which will be blithely ignored by Ozymandius2011 next time he decides to muddy the waters by claiming that ESM access is not conditional on ratification of this treaty.

--Kaiser--

I am finding these posts prating on about a No vote highly amusing

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're being blatantly dishonest by peddling this argument. Not only have you failed to come up with an ECJ ruling that supports it - and you don't get to argue from authority that Michael Noonan has said it, unless you unconditionally accept everything Noonan says - there's no reason in logic for believing that the other member states who have signed up in good faith to these treaties will cheerfully accept such bad-faith reasoning from Ireland.

I think there is are better arguments here

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/12/who-originally-broke-the-eu-fiscal-rules-france-and-germany/#axzz1wAdGeteQ

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/deficit-rules-germany-france

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9156277/Europes-fiscal-pact-in-disarray-as-even-Dutch-break-the-rules.html

http://theredrock.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/five-reasons-germany-isnt-innocent-in-the-euro-crisis/

The bad faith began with Germany.

While Merkel is the architect of the governance treaty I think anyone would be hard pressed to believe they (the Germans) will actually stick to the rules.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think there is are better arguments here

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/12/who-originally-broke-the-eu-fiscal-rules-france-and-germany/#axzz1wAdGeteQ

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/deficit-rules-germany-france

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9156277/Europes-fiscal-pact-in-disarray-as-even-Dutch-break-the-rules.html

http://theredrock.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/five-reasons-germany-isnt-innocent-in-the-euro-crisis/

The bad faith began with Germany.

While Merkel is the architect of the governance treaty I think anyone would be hard pressed to believe they (the Germans) will actually stick to the rules.

The reason Germany and France were able to breach the Stability & Growth Pact, though, was largely down to the requirement for a qualified majority to support the Commission's recommendation of an excessive deficit procedure.

The Treaty changes the rules so that it requires a qualified majority (without the country in question) to block such a recommendation.

So if that's an issue for you, you should be voting Yes to make it more difficult for them to breach the rules in future. You won't, though, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

Beamer06

I do not trust the government, so my vote will be no and there are 4 votes in our house and they are all no

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason Germany and France were able to breach the Stability & Growth Pact, though, was largely down to the requirement for a qualified majority to support the Commission's recommendation of an excessive deficit procedure.

The Treaty changes the rules so that it requires a qualified majority (without the country in question) to block such a recommendation.

So if that's an issue for you, you should be voting Yes to make it more difficult for them to breach the rules in future. You won't, though, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

Of course not. If the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though.

I agree that countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules but I object to being threatened.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course not. If the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though.

I agree that countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules but I object to being threatened.

Well, that's the beauty of democracy: there's no requirement that your reasons for voting the way you do make any sense outside your own head.

beeftotheheels

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course not. If the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though.

I agree that countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules but I object to being threatened.

Threatened? If My sister says to her son that if he tidies away his toys then he can have an ice-lolly later if it is hot, is that threatening him if he doesn't tidy away his toys?

The ESM is not a "right" of ours which is being threatened with being taken away if we fail to ratify the TSCG. It is a potential benefit, which we can only avail of (should we need it), if we promise to play by the rules (which you and most other Irish people think we should promise to play by in any event).

That reads to me like a protest vote. "I'm angry and I need an excuse to lash out, and you "threatening me" is it."

That's not a good reason to vote no. That's a reason to abstain because it ignores the negative consequences of a "No" vote.

goat2

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.

i fully agree with you on this, i do not fully understand the thing, also there are supposed to be big meetings between the eu countries in the next month to discuss the way forward, and since these have not happened yet and we do not know what the way forward the heads in europe want to carry the thing, it means that nobody in this country knows what they really are voting on

oscarBravo

goat2 wrote: »

i fully agree with you on this, i do not fully understand the thing...

So educate yourself, or abstain.

"I don't know what either of these buttons do" isn't an argument for pushing one of them, it's an argument for pushing neither of them.

Max Power1

No voter here.

I voted no in both Lisbons too.

(As an aside, how far did the "Yes to Jobs, Yes to Lisbon" slogan get us?)

-MaxPower

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

I have dealt with that. .

I must have missed it then but just in case, remember the question. You stated that posters here had maintained that the debt was repayable i.e. would be repaid. Other posters (including me) replied that it had been stated that the debt was sustainable. It was pointed out to you using real-life examples from the 1980s that sustainable debt could include a situation where the absolute level of debt was going up.

Once again, please provide me with a quote from a poster here to back up your original claim that posters here were maintaining that the debt was repayable (which is different from sustainable).

Wild Bill wrote: »

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.



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

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/will-yes-vote-cost-6-billion.html#more

Have a read of that link to see a bit more. While it is about one of the other lies of the "no" campaign (that a "yes" will cost €6 bn) one point stands out in relation to your position.

"The structural deficit can be reduced through a combination of three factors:

• economic growth
• structural improvements in labour and capital
• fiscal consolidation "

What applies to the structural deficit applies equally to the total debt as the debt is the accumulated deficits.

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.

You and Constantin and a few others believe the debt is unsustainable. Constantin seems to think all debts are the government's debts including your mortgage and the business of the IFSC as well. He is quite wrong on that.

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

This post on Seamus Coffey's blog debunks completely the argument that the debt is unsustainable. It shows quite clearly how, using the conservative IMF projections up until 2017. How about this quotation:

"Under IMF projections we will satisfy the debt brake rule in 2017 with no additional fiscal effort above what has already been provided for up to 2015 with neutral budgets after that.

The debt reduction rule can be satisfied while running deficits and does not require any debt repayments. The IMF project that there will be an overall budget deficit of 1.9% of GDP in 2017. "

Wow, compliance with the debt brake rule (the equivalent of sustainability as it meets our obligations under the Treaty and related EU rules) while we are still running deficits and the debt is increasing. Well blow me away, but isn't this what I have been trying to explain to you for pages now. Coffey also uses another analysis to show we may even be compliant from 2015.

"Although this is only a simulation it does show that we would not need additional fiscal adjustment to satisfy the debt brake rule. In fact, using IMF projections it can be shown that we will be able to satisfy the rule before we even leave the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP). The debt brake rule doesn’t actually become effective until three years after a country leaves the EDP. We have until 2018 to become compliant with the debt reduction rule but we may actually be compliant by as early as 2015."


As for Constantin and his total debt scenario, have a read of this

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/02/reducing-debt.html

which concludes:

"Ireland has a large and excessive level of debt but we are not likely to fall over a cliff face"

The final word I will give you on sustainability is in this article

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/some-general-government-debt.html

"Even with the net value of NAMA included, the 2014 debt level will not be more than €210 billion and may be closer to €200 billion. This is truly massive, but the difference between a debt of €200 billion and a debt of €250 billion is material. We could not survive a debt of €250 billion. If we have to carry a debt that large we would be in a similar crisis to one that Greece is now having to face up to.............We can fix the mess we find ourselves in without resorting to the tyranny of default. It will require hard choices but it can be done."

What I like about his articles is that the assumptions are explained clearly and backed up by links to various official Irish, EU and IMF documents.