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

AVN_1

Definitely - No, too much EU.

If we vote No - we don't lose anything, while if we vote Yes - we will lose a lot.

Scofflaw

AVN_1 wrote: »

Definitely - No, too much EU.

If we vote No - we don't lose anything,

Apart from ESM access, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Apart from ESM access, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

1) We will not lose it

2) We don't need it

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Apart from ESM access, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And better structures to stop this mess happening again, but who's counting.

Parkwaydrive

Doesn't anyone realise that Iceland are one of few countries who have stood up and not accepted any help?

They are now one of the few countries to be seen to have made a slight improvement.

Apart from that, there is no politics in this. It's mindless nonsense to vote anything other than no.

The government are trying to relieve themselves of all their bad decisions and mistakes and hand power over to Europe (Germany) and I for one am certainly not one for letting criminals away with stuff!

dvpower

AVN_1 wrote: »

1) We will not lose it

The referendum commission disagree with you on that point.

AVN_1

dvpower wrote: »

The referendum commission disagree with you on that point.

That doesn't mean they are correct

Scofflaw

AVN_1 wrote: »

1) We will not lose it

Unfortunately, it's the case - yes, the Preamble is legally binding, and yes, giving us ESM money will be illegal if we don't ratify the Fiscal Treaty.

AVN_1 wrote: »

2) We don't need it

I can't fault your optimism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dvpower

AVN_1 wrote: »

That doesn't mean they are correct

Who should I trust? The independent referendum commissioner or the new boards.ie member who provides no reasoning for their assertion?

Difficult choice.

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's the case - yes, the Preamble is legally binding, and yes, giving us ESM money will be illegal if we don't ratify the Fiscal Treaty.

Germans have too much to lose

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't fault your optimism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If we default on the bank debt, exit the Euro Zone, re-introduce Punt, and slightly devalue it, we would't need it.

AVN_1

dvpower wrote: »

Who should I trust? The independent referendum commissioner or the new boards.ie member who provides no reasoning for their assertion?

Difficult choice.

read my posts above

dvpower

AVN_1 wrote: »

read my posts above

I did. But I was shaking my head at the time so I might have missed some bits.

Boskowski

AVN_1 wrote: »

Germans have too much to lose

Say I'm following your 'Germans' line which in fact I believe is brainwashed, ignorant, tinfoil hat 'I believe what I want to believe' stuff, but say for arguments sake I do.

Isn't what you're saying the equivalent of 'you need me, I gonna shoot myself in the head now, see how you fare then!' ?

AVN_1

dvpower wrote: »

I did. But I was shaking my head at the time so I might have missed some bits.

So, read it again

Boskowski

AVN_1 wrote: »

If we default on the bank debt, exit the Euro Zone, re-introduce Punt, and slightly devalue it, we would't need it.

And that would give us less 'austerity' then a fiscal treaty? How confident are you in that?

dvpower

AVN_1 wrote: »

So, read it again

I did. Unfortunately reverting to the Punt (and slightly devaluing) has virtually no support in the country.

I think you have a way to go selling that policy.

Scofflaw

AVN_1 wrote: »

Germans have too much to lose

Ah, no - that's not an argument that we'll have access to the ESM, it's an argument that the Germans will cough up some kind of bailout for us. And that, I think, is indeed probable - the question will be on what terms?

But ESM has a legal stipulation that says no access without the Fiscal Treaty. The German government might like to ignore that, but it will simply be taken to court and lose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AVN_1

Boskowski wrote: »

And that would give us less 'austerity' then a fiscal treaty? How confident are you in that?

Certainly less, as we would significantly slash our public debt (and therefore debt service), stimulate export, public spending and property markets. Our revenue would go up while expenditure would go down.

AVN_1

dvpower wrote: »

I did. Unfortunately reverting to the Punt (and slightly devaluing) has virtually no support in the country.

I would say about 15% already support this (or very similar) view.

ixtlan

Boskowski wrote: »

Isn't what you're saying the equivalent of 'you need me, I gonna shoot myself in the head now, see how you fare then!' ?

Indeed. As I've seen this argument suggested by the no side... though never as succinctly as this... I'm reminded of the scene in "Blazing Saddles" where the black sherrif holds the racist townsfolk at bay by holding a gun to his own head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

It really is the core of the no argument.

Ix

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, no - that's not an argument that we'll have access to the ESM, it's an argument that the Germans will cough up some kind of bailout for us. And that, I think, is indeed probable - the question will be on what terms?

We might care about additional bailout (whichever way it comes), but certainly we wouldn't care about ESM itself, if it doesn't bring us additional money.

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

But ESM has a legal stipulation that says no access without the Fiscal Treaty. The German government might like to ignore that, but it will simply be taken to court and lose.

And who will sue the Germans if they are behind the ESM?

Scofflaw

AVN_1 wrote: »

And who will sue the Germans if they are behind the ESM?

Oh, I'd imagine the good professor Schnachtschneider and friends would be down in Karlsruhe straight off - unless the prospect of actually winning a case put them off, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

AVN_1 wrote: »

Certainly less, as we would significantly slash our public debt (and therefore debt service), stimulate export, public spending and property markets. Our revenue would go up while expenditure would go down.

And the working people will be oh so happy that they're now being paid in toy money and most of that will be taken away even since we haven't addressed fundamental issues like PS and welfare expenditure and certainly need a lot of taxes if we can't borrow. And of course everyone - not just the working people - will be oh so happy that petrol now costs £3?

Remember we pretty much import everything people can't live without these days. Cars, TVs, mobile phones, pretty much every consumer good which will have to be bought with your 'slightly' devalued Punt.

I'm not sure you have thought this through.

AVN_1

Boskowski wrote: »

And the working people will be oh so happy that they're now being paid in toy money and most of that will be taken away even since we haven't addressed fundamental issues like PS and welfare expenditure and certainly need a lot of taxes if we can't borrow. And of course everyone - not just the working people - will be oh so happy that petrol now costs £3?

Remember we pretty much import everything people can't live without these days. Cars, TVs, mobile phones, pretty much every consumer good which will have to be bought with your 'slightly' devalued Punt.

I'm not sure you have thought this through.

Welfare expenditure would decline as people would re-join the work force.
I'm talking about controlled devaluation, probably within 10-20% range, or so. So petrol will not cost 3 pounds and prices on most of the imported goods will not go up much. At the same time production of some goods might return back to Ireland.

Boskowski

AVN_1 wrote: »

Welfare expenditure would decline as people would re-join the work force.
I'm talking about controlled devaluation, probably within 10-20% range, or so. So petrol will not cost 3 pounds and prices on most of the imported goods will not go up much. At the same time production of some goods might return back to Ireland.

Re-joining the workforce? Doing what? Building Autobahns?

And you're not controlling that devaluation. Whatever that new currency is 'worth' will be determined by the 'markets'. And they won't look kindly at a country thats just after defaulting on their bank debt and tries to balance the book with newly printed money.

Look, I'm not claiming to be an expert. I guess really my 'not a good idea' carries probably as much scientific weight as your 'good idea'.

What I do believe fairly strongly is that there is no desire for such a shock therapy within our middle class (and they pay for everything after all) and within our political class. Not going to happen. This is western democracy and this is capitalism. The show must go on. Nothing will ever change.

Stuck Cone

Im not voting in the hope someone else out there votes no for me, it would help if i was registered to vote too

AVN_1

Boskowski wrote: »

Re-joining the workforce? Doing what? Building Autobahns?

Everywhere, including TNCs

C14N

AVN_1 wrote: »

I would say about 15% already support this (or very similar) view.

I would have no trouble at all believing that at least 15% of this country (although I would probably actually estimate much higher) haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about when it comes to issues like this.