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

AVN_1

Boskowski wrote: »

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.

There are many methods to control devaluation,for example devalue to a certain level and then peg it to a basket of currencies/one currency, temporarily or permanently.

Boskowski

AVN_1 wrote: »

There are many methods to control devaluation,for example devalue to a certain level and then peg it to a basket of currencies/one currency, temporarily or permanently.

Like the Euro you mean? :pac:

AVN_1

Boskowski wrote: »

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.

1) I'm a middle class myself and currently paying for everything.

2) It might look a bit scary at the beginning, however it has light at the end of a short tunnel, whereas the current Euro approach has no light even after 30 years. I go for the first option.

Stuck Cone

AVN_1 wrote: »

1) I'm a middle class myself and currently paying for everything.

2) It might look a bit scary at the beginning, however it has light at the end of a short tunnel, whereas the current Euro approach has no light even after 30 years. I go for the first option.

Public sector grooovy train?

AVN_1

Boskowski wrote: »

Like the Euro you mean? :pac:

Depending on its future viability.

Usually baskets linked either to main export markets or main debt markets, or both.

AVN_1

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Public sector grooovy train?

No, I'm in private sector. Large proportion of public sector would vote Yes as they prefer "stability" mentioned above.

Stuck Cone

AVN_1 wrote: »

No, I'm in private sector. Large proportion of public sector would vote Yes as they prefer "stability" mentioned above.

Ask yourself what does stability mean to you?

beeftotheheels

AVN_1 wrote: »

1) It might look a bit scary at the beginning, however it has light at the end of a short tunnel, whereas the current Euro approach has no light even after 30 years. I go for the first option.

1. What you're talking about here are capital controls - they're illegal if you're in the EU so choose - leave the EU or don't reintroduce the punt?

2. If you "only" devalue by 10% where are all the jobs going to come from? A 10% devaluation won't make us all that competitive (especially not if we lose the advantage of being in the euro or EU)?

3. The bank debt is already, for the most part, our debt. We've already borrowed from the EFSF and pumped the money into the banks. Therefore we cannot "default" on any meaningful amount of bank debt. It no longer exists. All we can default on is sovereign debt.

The reason it looks scary is because it is ill thought out, takes no account of pesky things like facts, and is thus completely feckless.

bbam

I'm hung on the fence on this vote...
Up until last week I was firmly voting yes but to be honest the longer it goes on the more reasons I see to vote no

Here are some of the points that have me thinking of voting no...

We're putting this into our constitution... If in 12 months time the EU decide to scrap it for a new treaty we'll be stuck with it..

No one had said what the automatic measures to correct our financial position will be. Maybe I missed it? But we just don't know what would be done. It could force massive spending cuts and tax hikes without our best interest being included.

Any country can veto another from getting further funding?? Does this mean France or Germany could veto us getting a second bailout until we increase our Corporation tax rates.

If we vote this into the constitution and major changes are made by MR Hollande or whoever, where do we stand?? We're stuck with it, right?

Couldn't we access funding from the IMF if we needed it without the treaty?

It seems in any likelihood that by the time we need further funding that the money pot will be well emptied, what happens then?

The last big big problem for me is the fact that FG are out there bargaining on our behalf.. I just don't think they can cut it among the big nations and don't feel confident they can do ANY bargaining that's meaningful..


It's a sad thing but both sides are using scare tactics and mis-information throughout the whole campaign leaving the ordinary punter with little facts to make a decision... Currently lots of people I meet are going to vote no because of the poor information or to stick it to the government over the poor performance of the country...

I may now not vote or spoil my vote, two things I never thought I'd consider

Scofflaw

bbam wrote: »

I'm hung on the fence on this vote...
Up until last week I was firmly voting yes but to be honest the longer it goes on the more reasons I see to vote no

Here are some of the points that have me thinking of voting no...

We're putting this into our constitution... If in 12 months time the EU decide to scrap it for a new treaty we'll be stuck with it..

No, all that's going into the Constitution is permission for the government to ratify it. If it was replaced in a year it would be as irrelevant to us as too everybody else - less so, actually, since some of the countries actually intend writing the fiscal limits into their constitutions, something we're not doing.

bbam wrote: »

No one had said what the automatic measures to correct our financial position will be. Maybe I missed it? But we just don't know what would be done. It could force massive spending cuts and tax hikes without our best interest being included.

We don't know, but the Irish government writes the details of our correction mechanism in agreement with the Commission, so it's up to them to include our best interests.

bbam wrote: »

Any country can veto another from getting further funding?? Does this mean France or Germany could veto us getting a second bailout until we increase our Corporation tax rates.

And we could hold up the bailout of Italy until everyone agreed not to do that. Unanimity is unanimity.

bbam wrote: »

If we vote this into the constitution and major changes are made by MR Hollande or whoever, where do we stand?? We're stuck with it, right?

No - see above. The Treaty is not going into the Constitution - all that's going in is permission to ratify. And that permission stipulates the March 2nd version of the Treaty. so if the text is changed, the permission we give by voting Yes no longer applies.

bbam wrote: »

Couldn't we access funding from the IMF if we needed it without the treaty?

No, the IMF have made it clear they won't lend without European partners, and that Ireland is already well above what they'd like to be lending us.

bbam wrote: »

It seems in any likelihood that by the time we need further funding that the money pot will be well emptied, what happens then?

No, we'll probably only need a small amount, while the amounts needed for Spain have been wildly exaggerated - Spain is not simply another Ireland.

bbam wrote: »

The last big big problem for me is the fact that FG are out there bargaining on our behalf.. I just don't think they can cut it among the big nations and don't feel confident they can do ANY bargaining that's meaningful..

That's your personal view - I don't vote for either FF or FG, but I prefer the tactics of the latter so far. Fianna Fáil spent their time pretending everything was absolutely fine, we'd turned loads of corners, the fundamentals were completely sound, and came up with a disastrous gamble of a bank guarantee that turned into a bank bailout because they had no idea what the real problems in the banks were, and were aiming to resist getting a bailout until they had absolutely no room to manoeuvre just to save political face.

At least we're getting more honest news from Fine Gael, even if the No side does always describe it as scaremongering.

bbam wrote: »

It's a sad thing but both sides are using scare tactics and mis-information throughout the whole campaign leaving the ordinary punter with little facts to make a decision... Currently lots of people I meet are going to vote no because of the poor information or to stick it to the government over the poor performance of the country...

I may now not vote or spoil my vote, two things I never thought I'd consider

Of the two, not voting is probably the more effective. Low turnout is a more effective register of protest than a spoiled vote, since there's no distinguishing someone who can't read their ballot paper from someone who is protesting the vote. The post-vote surveys ask about the reasons for not voting rather than the reasons for spoiling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

bbam wrote: »

=
We're putting this into our constitution... If in 12 months time the EU decide to scrap it for a new treaty we'll be stuck with it..

There is another thread on this topic in this forum. The Treaty is not actually being written into the constitution - voting Yes to the proposal simply means that the Oireachtas may ratify the Treaty; voting No means that they may not. It can later be repealed by the Oireachtas if necessary, it's not clear whether this would result in penalties but in reality it is unlikely that any country determined to repeal the Treaty could really be stopped.

Any country can veto another from getting further funding?? Does this mean France or Germany could veto us getting a second bailout until we increase our Corporation tax rates.

The ESM Treaty and further bailouts don't really have anything to do with 99% of the upcoming Treaty Referendum. Ireland cannot access the ESM on or after April Fools Day 2013 if it does not ratify the Treaty, but that's the only connection. Otherwise the ESM has nothing to do with it.

Couldn't we access funding from the IMF if we needed it without the treaty?

If Ireland were also bailed out by the EU or Euro Area partners in some form (apart from the ESM, for example), yes it seems as though it could. There is an issue that we are already being bailed out beyond our subscription, but that actually doesn't appear to be an immediate problem for the I.M.F.

It seems in any likelihood that by the time we need further funding that the money pot will be well emptied, what happens then?

I'm not sure that could be described as likely. The question is impossible to answer though. It may be that in such a scenario Europe falls apart, or it may be that there is further economic convergence and greater resources are made available to rescue failing economies. This is in the realms of daydreaming speculation.

The last big big problem for me is the fact that FG are out there bargaining on our behalf.. I just don't think they can cut it among the big nations and don't feel confident they can do ANY bargaining that's meaningful.

Pretty much agreed. I think Ireland is a pretty ineffective and passive spectator in the Euro sovereign crisis, but that's probably not going to change any time soon.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

Pretty much agreed. I think Ireland is a pretty ineffective and passive spectator in the Euro sovereign crisis, but that's probably not going to change any time soon.

I'm not sure what we bring to the table. They don't need us but we certainly need them.

goat2

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, all that's going into the Constitution is permission for the government to ratify it. If it was replaced in a year it would be as irrelevant to us as too everybody else - less so, actually, since some of the countries actually intend writing the fiscal limits into their constitutions, something we're not doing.



We don't know, but the Irish government writes the details of our correction mechanism in agreement with the Commission, so it's up to them to include our best interests.



And we could hold up the bailout of Italy until everyone agreed not to do that. Unanimity is unanimity.



No - see above. The Treaty is not going into the Constitution - all that's going in is permission to ratify. And that permission stipulates the March 2nd version of the Treaty. so if the text is changed, the permission we give by voting Yes no longer applies.



No, the IMF have made it clear they won't lend without European partners, and that Ireland is already well above what they'd like to be lending us.



No, we'll probably only need a small amount, while the amounts needed for Spain have been wildly exaggerated - Spain is not simply another Ireland.



That's your personal view - I don't vote for either FF or FG, but I prefer the tactics of the latter so far. Fianna Fáil spent their time pretending everything was absolutely fine, we'd turned loads of corners, the fundamentals were completely sound, and came up with a disastrous gamble of a bank guarantee that turned into a bank bailout because they had no idea what the real problems in the banks were, and were aiming to resist getting a bailout until they had absolutely no room to manoeuvre just to save political face.

At least we're getting more honest news from Fine Gael, even if the No side does always describe it as scaremongering.



Of the two, not voting is probably the more effective. Low turnout is a more effective register of protest than a spoiled vote, since there's no distinguishing someone who can't read their ballot paper from someone who is protesting the vote. The post-vote surveys ask about the reasons for not voting rather than the reasons for spoiling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

people are already giving reason, it is the uncertainty of the whole thing, since france, spain and greece are in a spin, and we being a very small country by comparison to any of those in europe, yes we are more frightened than anything to make a decision until the rest get their act together, nothings certain, that is my opinion

Scofflaw

goat2 wrote: »

people are already giving reason, it is the uncertainty of the whole thing, since france, spain and greece are in a spin, and we being a very small country by comparison to any of those in europe, yes we are more frightened than anything to make a decision until the rest get their act together, nothings certain, that is my opinion

As I said elsewhere, a No increases the uncertainty for us, because it means that we're not in the same boat as the rest of the eurozone, thereby cutting us off from some forms of mutual assistance.

A No vote will not insulate us from the effects of a Spanish or Italian crash. On the contrary, it makes us more vulnerable to it, because while we have a claim on ESM funds if we've met the qualifications, we would have no particular claim on additional 'special' funding for ourselves at a time when the ESM, to which the other countries have definitely committed, was under strain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

goat2

Scofflaw,
you seem to be very well informed on this subject, thank god someone is, you make sense in what you say,
your advice is, in unsure, not to vote

kev_B

Voting no to the fiscal treaty this Thursday because ->

1. Fails to address real issues behind EU crisis which is the huge debt overhang, not the fiscal rules outlined.
2. Fiscal rules even during the boom wouldn't of stopped FF governments from the spending spree or fueling the property bubble. It is a nod and a wink to the German taxpayer.
3. The French will not ratify this treaty without amendments for "growth".
4. The Germans have delayed ratification of the treaty 3 times, will now look to ratification in September. The sky didn't fall in on the Germans.
5. Advisor to French Finance Minister stated to fund these growth initiatives they want to discuss the financial tax which would kill off the IFSC.
6. Treaty is linked with access to the ESM, we have already committed to 1.2billion to this fund with the possibility of committing over 11 billion when the fund passes 700 billion.
7. ESM Article 15 states that ESM members through loans can bail out failed ESM member banks. Spain/Italy most likely will access this fund before us.
8. Article 9 (2) allows the ESM board to require states to pay authorised unpaid capital to cover losses. Article 10 (1) allows the ESM board to change the ESM’s authorised capital stock at any time. And Article 35 (1) gives the ESM board immunity from any legal action.
9. Debt is not sustainable and a deal needs to be renegotiated eventually, this needs to happen sooner.
10. Fianna Fail canvassing for a yes vote for the "good of the country"....lol.
11. Richard Bruton wants to end democracy by making you vote again if you vote no.
12. Deficit will be tackled in a drip drip fashion which will ensure a lost decade with no growth. Total stagnation.
13. Yes vote ensures the gravy train will continue for politicans as they do not have the political will to get things done.
14. Funding can be obtained from the markets if deficit is tackled immediately.
15. Funding can be obtained from EFSF extension as stated by Noonan September 2011 by renegotiation with the troika.
16. Funding can be obtained from the ESM if it is in the interest of the stability of the eurozone.
17. Treaty is about fiscal rules, not about jobs or growth (Lisbon treaty anyone?)
18. We have a veto on the amendments to the ESM treaty but government refuses to use it (Article 136)
19. This is not a vote on the EU/Euro and scaremongering has no place in the debate as presented by the yes side.
20. Voting no as I do not accept the current model towards "recovery". 4 years already wasted with no economic growth and zombie banks.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said elsewhere, a No increases the uncertainty for us,

I respect your knowledge and opinion but this is the crux ^ ^ of it for me, the proponents of a Yes vote have not convinced me of the above, the future has no certainties whatever way we go.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

I respect your knowledge and opinion but this is the crux ^ ^ of it for me, the proponents of a Yes vote have not convinced me of the above, the future has no certainties whatever way we go.

Well, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, if you see what I mean. Neither vote removes uncertainty entirely (it's the future, after all), but the Yes position has one major element of uncertainty removed compared to the No, which is that we know where the funding comes from.

If the Fiscal Treaty represented a huge change to the fiscal rules, then the uncertainty created by that could be balanced against the certainty of knowing where funding comes from - but it doesn't. The various debt rules remain whichever way we vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

kev_B wrote: »

Voting no to the fiscal treaty this Thursday because ->

Spreading the love eh? http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=600246

Don't have time to point out some of the nonsense in your post now but I'd safely say someone will.

goat2

kev_B wrote: »

Voting no to the fiscal treaty this Thursday because ->

1. Fails to address real issues behind EU crisis which is the huge debt overhang, not the fiscal rules outlined.
2. Fiscal rules even during the boom wouldn't of stopped FF governments from the spending spree or fueling the property bubble. It is a nod and a wink to the German taxpayer.
3. The French will not ratify this treaty without amendments for "growth".
4. The Germans have delayed ratification of the treaty 3 times, will now look to ratification in September. The sky didn't fall in on the Germans.
5. Advisor to French Finance Minister stated to fund these growth initiatives they want to discuss the financial tax which would kill off the IFSC.
6. Treaty is linked with access to the ESM, we have already committed to 1.2billion to this fund with the possibility of committing over 11 billion when the fund passes 700 billion.
7. ESM Article 15 states that ESM members through loans can bail out failed ESM member banks. Spain/Italy most likely will access this fund before us.
8. Article 9 (2) allows the ESM board to require states to pay authorised unpaid capital to cover losses. Article 10 (1) allows the ESM board to change the ESM’s authorised capital stock at any time. And Article 35 (1) gives the ESM board immunity from any legal action.
9. Debt is not sustainable and a deal needs to be renegotiated eventually, this needs to happen sooner.
10. Fianna Fail canvassing for a yes vote for the "good of the country"....lol.
11. Richard Bruton wants to end democracy by making you vote again if you vote no.
12. Deficit will be tackled in a drip drip fashion which will ensure a lost decade with no growth. Total stagnation.
13. Yes vote ensures the gravy train will continue for politicans as they do not have the political will to get things done.
14. Funding can be obtained from the markets if deficit is tackled immediately.
15. Funding can be obtained from EFSF extension as stated by Noonan September 2011 by renegotiation with the troika.
16. Funding can be obtained from the ESM if it is in the interest of the stability of the eurozone.
17. Treaty is about fiscal rules, not about jobs or growth (Lisbon treaty anyone?)
18. We have a veto on the amendments to the ESM treaty but government refuses to use it (Article 136)
19. This is not a vote on the EU/Euro and scaremongering has no place in the debate as presented by the yes side.
20. Voting no as I do not accept the current model towards "recovery". 4 years already wasted with no economic growth and zombie banks.

your bullet point 11 i would agree with, as it would give us more time, and maybe a clearer road ahead would have been put forward in europe,

even though in the last referendums, i was all against going back to the ballot box,
this time, since they will not move the goalposts back a bit, as they say a general election has to be called to change them, well then this is the only way we can have them changed, and of course in the middle of all this there is a huge waste of money, manning stations, counting the yesses an no,s and many more expences also being incurred by this,

kev_B

meglome wrote: »

Spreading the love eh? http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=600246

Don't have time to point out some of the nonsense in your post now but I'd safely say someone will.

So I'm not allowed be on other sites no?

Why did you bother posting as your post makes no point at all? Waste of internet space, please focus on the points next time! I'm prepared to accept the risks with a no vote.

meglome

kev_B wrote: »

So I'm not allowed be on other sites no?

Why did you bother posting as your post makes no point at all? Waste of internet space, please focus on the points next time! I'm prepared to accept the risks with a no vote.

Promise I will. No one called you on any of this on the property pin.

Godge

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.

Such an approach might work at another time in another place. However, in the current circumstances and in Ireland's particular economic position, and given the European-wide economic crisis, a unilateral controlled devaluation would probably require and lead to the following:

(1) Irish Central Bank interest rates above 10% to prevent capital flight with consequent effects on tracker and variable rate mortgages;
(2) Significant tax rises as our tax revenues will be in punts and the interest on our foreign debts would be in Euros
(3) Significant annoyance among our European partners at the way in which we have escalated the crisis for everyone
(4) A subesuent refusal by our partners in the short-to-medium term to assist in funding our economy
(5) A requirement to introduce a severe austerity package to bring our budget into balance within a year - social welfare down by 25% for example
(6) International investor confidence in Ireland would disappear
(7) The effects of (5) and (6) on our economy would be so severe as to more than negate the boost to domestically produced exports such as agriculture created by the devaluation.

Overall, an Ireland with worse living conditions for its people than today.

meglome

meglome wrote: »

Don't have time to point out some of the nonsense in your post now but I'd safely say someone will.

What a great argument :rolleyes:


Vote no and bring the nonsense to an abrupt end. We are only postponing the inevitable, I`d rather we deal with reality now rather than in 5 years time with tens of billions more debt making the struggle far harder.

Scofflaw

kev_B wrote: »

Voting no to the fiscal treaty this Thursday because ->

1. Fails to address real issues behind EU crisis which is the huge debt overhang, not the fiscal rules outlined.

Signing up to updated fiscal rules is a necessary part of creating the conditions to deal with that, though.

2. Fiscal rules even during the boom wouldn't of stopped FF governments from the spending spree or fueling the property bubble. It is a nod and a wink to the German taxpayer.

The structural rule and the correction mechanism might well have done. But a nod and a wink to the German taxpayer is not an unreasonable thing in itself when you want him to lend you money.

3. The French will not ratify this treaty without amendments for "growth".

They're getting a supplementary pact.

4. The Germans have delayed ratification of the treaty 3 times, will now look to ratification in September. The sky didn't fall in on the Germans.

True, but it did fall in on us.

5. Advisor to French Finance Minister stated to fund these growth initiatives they want to discuss the financial tax which would kill off the IFSC.

A eurozone-wide financial transaction tax would make very little difference to the mostly eurozone financial companies in the IFSC.

6. Treaty is linked with access to the ESM, we have already committed to 1.2billion to this fund with the possibility of committing over 11 billion when the fund passes 700 billion.

That confuses access with membership. The government can - and will - ratify ESM membership with or without the Fiscal Treaty, because the legal link is the other way round.

7. ESM Article 15 states that ESM members through loans can bail out failed ESM member banks. Spain/Italy most likely will access this fund before us.

So? The fund is sized to cope with them.

8. Article 9 (2) allows the ESM board to require states to pay authorised unpaid capital to cover losses. Article 10 (1) allows the ESM board to change the ESM’s authorised capital stock at any time. And Article 35 (1) gives the ESM board immunity from any legal action.

Again, so? The decisions in question happen by unanimity of the Board of Governors, and the Board of Governors consists of the Finance Ministers of the ESM countries - that is, every country including Ireland has a veto on those decisions.

9. Debt is not sustainable and a deal needs to be renegotiated eventually, this needs to happen sooner.

So? How does a No vote achieve that? By making our position so awful that we need a debt writedown just to get back to where we are now?

10. Fianna Fail canvassing for a yes vote for the "good of the country"....lol.

So?

11. Richard Bruton wants to end democracy by making you vote again if you vote no.

What? The No campaign are the ones currently calling for a No vote to ensure a second referendum "when things are more definite".

12. Deficit will be tackled in a drip drip fashion which will ensure a lost decade with no growth. Total stagnation.

As opposed to overnight, which ensures 5 years of negative growth, followed by a decade of stagnation.

13. Yes vote ensures the gravy train will continue for politicans as they do not have the political will to get things done.

Oh, sure, sure...and there will also be a free puppy for everyone.

14. Funding can be obtained from the markets if deficit is tackled immediately.

Except that "tackling the deficit immediately" is a massive anti-stimulus package currently worth about €18bn, producing a nasty round of economic contractions and fresh deficits. Nobody should seriously make this argument.

15. Funding can be obtained from EFSF extension as stated by Noonan September 2011 by renegotiation with the troika.

Maybe...maybe.

16. Funding can be obtained from the ESM if it is in the interest of the stability of the eurozone.

Definitely not. It would be illegal under the requirement for ratification of the Fiscal Treaty.

17. Treaty is about fiscal rules, not about jobs or growth (Lisbon treaty anyone?)

Yes, jobs and growth is a separate issue. I don't expect an employment contract to cover my mortgage.

18. We have a veto on the amendments to the ESM treaty but government refuses to use it (Article 136)

No - the amendment is desirable but not necessary, quite aside from the fact that the government will not be refusing to do it.

19. This is not a vote on the EU/Euro and scaremongering has no place in the debate as presented by the yes side.

Whereas the No side scaremongering is, of course.

20. Voting no as I do not accept the current model towards "recovery". 4 years already wasted with no economic growth and zombie banks.

Sure - recessions should be made illegal.

Good roundup, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

goat2

Godge wrote: »

Such an approach might work at another time in another place. However, in the current circumstances and in Ireland's particular economic position, and given the European-wide economic crisis, a unilateral controlled devaluation would probably require and lead to the following:

(1) Irish Central Bank interest rates above 10% to prevent capital flight with consequent effects on tracker and variable rate mortgages;
(2) Significant tax rises as our tax revenues will be in punts and the interest on our foreign debts would be in Euros
(3) Significant annoyance among our European partners at the way in which we have escalated the crisis for everyone
(4) A subesuent refusal by our partners in the short-to-medium term to assist in funding our economy
(5) A requirement to introduce a severe austerity package to bring our budget into balance within a year - social welfare down by 25% for example
(6) International investor confidence in Ireland would disappear
(7) The effects of (5) and (6) on our economy would be so severe as to more than negate the boost to domestically produced exports such as agriculture created by the devaluation.

Overall, an Ireland with worse living conditions for its people than today.

point 6,
international investor confidence in ireland would be severely effected,
why. elaborate, i dont understand that,
as the yes side are saying that if we do not vote yes, we will lose these investors.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

What a great argument :rolleyes:


Vote no and bring the nonsense to an abrupt end. We are only postponing the inevitable, I`d rather we deal with reality now rather than in 5 years time with tens of billions more debt making the struggle far harder.

Thereby removing about €18bn from the economy overnight. Which will result in a large economic contraction (somewhere round 10-12% of GNP), with resulting business closures and job losses - which will result in a shrinking tax base and an expanding welfare roll...and a new deficit. And when you remove that deficit, the same thing happens over again.

Congratulations - that's about the only thing that could be done that would make things dramatically worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, if you see what I mean. Neither vote removes uncertainty entirely (it's the future, after all), but the Yes position has one major element of uncertainty removed compared to the No, which is that we know where the funding comes from.

If the Fiscal Treaty represented a huge change to the fiscal rules, then the uncertainty created by that could be balanced against the certainty of knowing where funding comes from - but it doesn't. The various debt rules remain whichever way we vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm leaving the here and now out of my choice. A Yes or a No will make no difference to the present and near future. It's austerity one way or another or in one form or another. What I am seeing are vested interests trying to maintain what they have as the whole goes down in flames around them and all the while the financial pariahs are betting and profitting on the outcomes.
I am thinking of my decision in terms of my children and what legacy we are creating for them. The EU needs drastic reform or if it can't be reformed then broken up as a failed entity imo, the thoughts of my children dealing with this cycle of boom and bust depresses the hell out of me. I can handle years of austerity if we are actually going towards stability.

later12

kev_B wrote: »

10. Fianna Fail canvassing for a yes vote for the "good of the country"....lol.

In fairness, while I disagree with their position on the Treaty Referendum, I think Fianna Fail took a principled stand on campaigning for a Yes vote.

The party understood that it stands to lose ground to Sinn Fein who have probably gained traction as 'leaders of the opposition' during the referendum campaign. Fianna Fail openly recognized that danger and nevertheless stuck to their pro European political philosophy, apparently on a point of core principle.

Also for what it's worth, they do have the least manipulative referendum posters in the entire campaign.

Given that this referendum has some of the most misleading referendum literature in living memory (on both sides), I think that's worth mentioning.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm leaving the here and now out of my choice. A Yes or a No will make no difference to the present and near future. It's austerity one way or another or in one form or another. What I am seeing are vested interests trying to maintain what they have as the whole goes down in flames around them and all the while the financial pariahs are betting and profitting on the outcomes.
I am thinking of my decision in terms of my children and what legacy we are creating for them. The EU needs drastic reform or if it can't be reformed then broken up as a failed entity imo, the thoughts of my children dealing with this cycle of boom and bust depresses the hell out of me. I can handle years of austerity if we are actually going towards stability.

But what does the EU have to do with boom and bust? Are you looking for it to control member state economies?

cordially,
Scofflaw