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

Godge

goat2 wrote: »

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.

I was talking about the efffects of a controlled devaluation of our currency.

If we devalued our currency, international investors would at the very best, adopt a wait and see strategy to decide whether or not we would need to devalue again i.e. did the controlled devaluation work. The very fact that they would do this would make the controlled devaluation less likely to work. This argument of course doesn't work in the fantasy world where everybody loves little old Ireland and would do anything to help them out.

At the very worst, they would decide that Ireland is no longer a stable place to do business and would pull out or wind down existing investment.

golden lane

there will never be complete financial stability......the world is constantly on the move.

the best that can be done, is to soften the blows as they come.......

that is best done by individual economies.......

goat2

later12 wrote: »

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.

why then did o cuive come out on the no side, and he still says no, even though mr martain is a yes

later12

goat2 wrote: »

why then did o cuive come out on the no side, and he still says no, even though mr martain is a yes

Either he disagrees with the policy as a matter of principle, or else he's worried about Fianna Fail losing popularity.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The party's decision is the important bit... all of the Yes side parties have dissent in their ranks.

C14N

meglome wrote: »

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

Sorry, I don't really know enough to say something about all the points but I'll take a stab. Edit: I see Scoflaw got on the job before I finished my own post.

kev_B wrote: »

2. Fiscal rules even during the boom wouldn't of stopped FF governments from the spending spree or fueling the property bubble.

How do you figure? If there were actually laws preventing overspending and generous tax cuts we couldn't afford, how would FF have gotten away with it?

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

Isn't there going to be a growth package included as part of the treaty? Or was Simon Convey just making that up at yesterday's debate?

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.

Why would the Germans ratifying in September be a reason to vote no?

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.

11 billion being an amount proportional to how much money we have. Everyone has to pay, the money has to come from somewhere. What's the problem?


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

Yes, even Fianna Fáil want Ireland to be successful.

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

Besides the fact that he retracted that statement, that's not ending or damaging democracy in any way, shape or form. Stop being so melodramatic.


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

Says who? It would seem to defeat the whole purpose of needing to ratify the treaty if everyone got it when they needed anyway.

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

So you just vote No to anything about fiscal rules?

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

Oh that is rich, scaremongering by the yes side has no place in the debate. Kindly take a look at this post here if you genuinely believe the Yes side are the worst for scaremongering.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

No its not the worst thing that could happen. Iceland has a lower unemployment rate than Ireland has. If you were unemployed you would have a better chance in Iceland.

Voting Yes ensures the status quo and gets piles more unsustainable debt upon us. Borrowing reduces our GDP in the future. Ireland badly needs the shakeup.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think that the way the EU is structured ensures that the small member states exist in a cycle of boom and bust. To my eyes the EU is not working for a huge amount of real people while it is working for a smaller elite or vested interest. That is the imbalance that is now bringing the whole thing down in a ball of flames. The Union is devouring itself from within, that is no accident.
We have to find a way (and be allowed to develop) our resources so that they are profitable for us. I see all the money that was pumped into agriculture here and I see what was diverted and what was wasted and what was actually invested and then I see a sector that is now unable to sustain itself without subsidy and I see farmers paid to not produce. That is just wrong imo and it is just one sector I have a problem with.
We have to be brave enough to say No, this is not working. I am making a 'political' decision to vote No, as I believe it will nuture and support the brave.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

No its not the worst thing that could happen. Iceland has a lower unemployment rate than Ireland has. If you were unemployed you would have a better chance in Iceland.

Voting Yes ensures the status quo and gets piles more unsustainable debt upon us. Borrowing reduces our GDP in the future. Ireland badly needs the shakeup.

This treaty vote isn't a vote on government policies to reduce the defiicit over time. Voting No will not effect the amount of 'unsustainable' debt that is piled upon us, it just makes that debt more expensive.

Mance Rayder

Deleted User wrote: »

No its not the worst thing that could happen. Iceland has a lower unemployment rate than Ireland has. If you were unemployed you would have a better chance in Iceland.

Voting Yes ensures the status quo and gets piles more unsustainable debt upon us. Borrowing reduces our GDP in the future. Ireland badly needs the shakeup.

Here we go again with this Iceland nonsense. Sure if Iceland is so fantastic, why we should all just move there!

Seriously though we trump Iceland in a lot of ways economically. Iceland has a smaller population than Cork, it is not in the Eurozone, nor is it in the EU. It can hardly be compared to an economy such as Ireland's.

kev_B

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

Rules are actually already in place just not reenforced. Germany were the first to break those rules previously. Please state how it creates the conditions to deal with the debt overhang.

The structural rule and the correction mechanism might well have done.

Incorrect. Ireland never broke rules during the boom.

They're getting a supplementary pact.

They will not ratfiy the current treaty, that's the point.

True, but it did fall in on us.

Fell on us regardless of this treaty.

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

Then why would the UK veto such a proposed tax? It would most definitely make a difference to our financial companies in the IFSC.

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.

Enda and co wanted a ECB firewall rather than ESM member state firewall. Our money will be used to bailout failed ESM member state banks (ESM Treaty - Article 15)

So? The fund is sized to cope with them.

It has been stated before that the fund would not be equipped to deal with both Spain and Italy. The fund would have to be bigger. The fact that the ESM member states have to pool money together as a unit to bail out failed ESM member state banks is a foolish concept. We already bailed out our failed Irish banks and added it to the national debt, we do not need to do it again with EU banks.

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.

You are really accepting of everything in this treaty! ESM board being immune from legal action, where is the accountability? I fundamentally disagree with bailing out failed banks.

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?

Question - do you think our debt is sustainable? We require a debt writedown, I would rather pull the plaster off now than drag this out for another 5 years.

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

It is perfectly reasonable for some no voters to call for that as there is a vaccum currently with on-going discussion in europe.

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

Iceland. Denmark. Look them up as you are scaremongering. We are following a japanese style crash at present.

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

Rabble rabble.

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.

Scare mongering. 18 billion has to be tackled regardless and you know this. It doesnt matter if its now or in 5 years time, the debt is unsustainable. In 5 years time we would have paid over 30 billion in interest repayments for the national debt. But more debt over more years = more chance of growth?

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

We have to yet to see this play out. Agree to disagree.

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

Agreed...but the mainstream parties use it as a major part of the yes vote. The trump card is indeed the funding position.

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

The fact the government refuses is a reason to vote no.

Whereas the No side scaremongering is, of course.

It is happening on both sides.

Sure - recessions should be made illegal.

More rabble rabble. There is no political will to tackle the deficit and the debt will be strung around our necks unless action is taken.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

No its not the worst thing that could happen. Iceland has a lower unemployment rate than Ireland has. If you were unemployed you would have a better chance in Iceland.

And? You know Iceland was IMF funded while reducing its deficit? And that it still owes the bank debt?

Deleted User wrote: »

Voting Yes ensures the status quo and gets piles more unsustainable debt upon us. Borrowing reduces our GDP in the future. Ireland badly needs the shakeup.

Nobody needs a collapsed economy. Here, this is worth reading, since it treats exactly the scenario you envisage as a "shakeup": http://thebowlerfiles.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/how-bad-could-it-get-the-implications-of-an-irish-no-vote-in-the-eu-fiscal-compact-treaty/

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think that the way the EU is structured ensures that the small member states exist in a cycle of boom and bust. To my eyes the EU is not working for a huge amount of real people while it is working for a smaller elite or vested interest. That is the imbalance that is now bringing the whole thing down in a ball of flames. The Union is devouring itself from within, that is no accident.
We have to find a way (and be allowed to develop) our resources so that they are profitable for us. I see all the money that was pumped into agriculture here and I see what was diverted and what was wasted and what was actually invested and then I see a sector that is now unable to sustain itself without subsidy and I see farmers paid to not produce. That is just wrong imo and it is just one sector I have a problem with.
We have to be brave enough to say No, this is not working. I am making a 'political' decision to vote No, as I believe it will nuture and support the brave.

The EU is not perfect. It is a work in progress. Despite what you think about it, can you imagine what kind of country this place would be if we had not joined the EU? We would still be the poor man of Europe. As it stands, and despite all the moaning, Ireland still has one of the highest standards of living in the world and we should appreciate and be thankful for that.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think that the way the EU is structured ensures that the small member states exist in a cycle of boom and bust.

But all capitalist economies exist in a state of boom and bust.

Happyman42 wrote: »

To my eyes the EU is not working for a huge amount of real people while it is working for a smaller elite or vested interest. That is the imbalance that is now bringing the whole thing down in a ball of flames. The Union is devouring itself from within, that is no accident.
We have to find a way (and be allowed to develop) our resources so that they are profitable for us. I see all the money that was pumped into agriculture here and I see what was diverted and what was wasted and what was actually invested and then I see a sector that is now unable to sustain itself without subsidy and I see farmers paid to not produce. That is just wrong imo and it is just one sector I have a problem with.
We have to be brave enough to say No, this is not working. I am making a 'political' decision to vote No, as I believe it will nuture and support the brave.

I know what you mean - and as a Green, it's something I'd broadly agree with. Practically, though, a No vote will simply not make that difference, or even start to approach making that difference - but I can appreciate the principle involved.

In a sense, indeed, the referendum choice is partly about the dichotomy you're highlighting. A lot of people, I think, would like to vote No because they feel the system has failed them, and needs to be changed - but will vote Yes because practically speaking the Yes gets you the money.

The reason I wouldn't take the No there is because - perhaps cynically - I don't believe that people are voting against the system that's currently failing them. Instead, they're voting against the fact that it's currently in the bust phase of its boom and bust cycle - and since it's exactly the same system they voted happily for when it was in its boom phase, it won't really get changed because people don't really want it changed. They just want it to go back to delivering the goodies like it used to. They want the system "sorted out", not fundamental change. And the politicians know that. They won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs just because it happens right now to be delivering goose****, because people don't really want them to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

The EU is not perfect. It is a work in progress. Despite what you think about it, can you imagine what kind of country this place would be if we had not joined the EU?

No I can't imagine what it would be like, but then neither can anybody. I can only go on what I see.

We would still be the poor man of Europe. As it stands, and despite all the moaning, Ireland still has one of the highest standards of living in the world and we should appreciate and be thankful for that.

What is missing there is 'Some in Ireland have the highest.....' All across Europe there are masses of people living lives in varying degrees of poverty. WE by our choices over the years have allowed the EU to be what it is; an entity that only works for some.
To my mind voting Yes just further maintains that imbalance.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

But all capitalist economies exist in a state of boom and bust.



I know what you mean - and as a Green, it's something I'd broadly agree with. Practically, though, a No vote will simply not make that difference, or even start to approach making that difference - but I can appreciate the principle involved.

In a sense, indeed, the referendum choice is partly about the dichotomy you're highlighting. A lot of people, I think, would like to vote No because they feel the system has failed them, and needs to be changed - but will vote Yes because practically speaking the Yes gets you the money.

The reason I wouldn't take the No there is because - perhaps cynically - I don't believe that people are voting against the system that's currently failing them. Instead, they're voting against the fact that it's currently in the bust phase of its boom and bust cycle - and since it's exactly the same system they voted happily for when it was in its boom phase, it won't really get changed because people don't really want it changed. They just want it to go back to delivering the goodies like it used to. They want the system "sorted out", not fundamental change. And the politicians know that. They won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs just because it happens right now to be delivering goose****, because people don't really want them to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Can't argue with that, I think the Yes side will win this but I'm convinced that ongoing events will render it pointless tbh.

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I can't imagine what it would be like, but then neither can anybody. I can only go on what I see.

What is missing there is 'Some in Ireland have the highest.....' All across Europe there are masses of people living lives in varying degrees of poverty. WE by our choices over the years have allowed the EU to be what it is; an entity that only works for some.
To my mind voting Yes just further maintains that imbalance.

I can't agree with you there, even our poorest have an income of 188 minimum a week and access to free healthcare and social housing. Now I know there will always be an amount of pure poverty, but in Ireland it is very low.

Having spent a good deal of time in countries like Ukraine where there is NO welfare or social housing, and being aware of the situation in countries like India and China, It is a fact that Irelands poor are better off than billions of people will ever be.

Having availed of back to education allowance myself I can only think what a great place we live in where it is possible to have a free education whilst being paid a weekly wage to do so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I can't agree with you there, even our poorest have an income of 188 minimum a week and access to free healthcare and social housing. Now I know there will always be an amount of pure poverty, but in Ireland it is very low.

Having spent a good deal of time in countries like Ukraine where there is NO welfare or social housing, and being aware of the situation in countries like India and China, It is a fact that Irelands poor are better off than billions of people will ever be.

Having availed of back to education allowance myself I can only think what a great place we live in where it is possible to have a free education whilst being paid a weekly wage to do so.

And despite all that, what exactly is the proposal to change any of it, at an EU level? It sounds like an argument for a highly centralized federal state with a controlled economy?

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I can't agree with you there, even our poorest have an income of 188 minimum a week and access to free healthcare and social housing. Now I know there will always be an amount of pure poverty, but in Ireland it is very low.

Having spent a good deal of time in countries like Ukraine where there is NO welfare or social housing, and being aware of the situation in countries like India and China, It is a fact that Irelands poor are better off than billions of people will ever be.

Having availed of back to education allowance myself I can only think what a great place we live in where it is possible to have a free education whilst being paid a weekly wage to do so.

I'm sorry, but the 'I'm alright Jack' argument doesn't work for me morally. I don't think you should be judging poverty solely from a fiscal point of view there is a lot more to consider.

bbam

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

Thanks for the reply.
More to think about so.

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but the 'I'm alright Jack' argument doesn't work for me morally. I don't think you should be judging poverty solely from a fiscal point of view there is a lot more to consider.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You can disagree with me when I say that the Irish are better off than billions of people all you want but the fact remains. We live in a country with a high standard of living, good support for the poor and plenty of opportunity including the freedom (thanks to the EU) of being able to move throughout Europe and expand our horizons .

Scofflaw

kev_B wrote: »

Rules are actually already in place just not reenforced. Germany were the first to break those rules previously.

And this Treaty changes the rules to make that less possible - if that's a real issue for you, rather than just something anti-German to say.

Please state how it creates the conditions to deal with the debt overhang.

No debt solution will happen without Germany.

Incorrect. Ireland never broke rules during the boom.

And we didn't have such a structural correction mechanism or the institutions to monitor and run it, which this Treaty creates.

They will not ratfiy the current treaty, that's the point.

So? Your choice, this Thursday, is between allowing Ireland ratify or not. Whether France ratifies is up to France, who don't have a veto on the Treaty either.

Fell on us regardless of this treaty.

Yes. So?

Then why would the UK veto such a proposed tax? It would most definitely make a difference to our financial companies in the IFSC.

Because the City of London doesn't like it, and what the City of London wants is UK government policy. I'm not saying the finance companies want to be taxed - only that their claims that they will up sticks to totally different jurisdictions is something that should be taken with a big pinch of salt, since they're clearly going to claim the sky will fall in if they're taxed even slightly.

Enda and co wanted a ECB firewall rather than ESM member state firewall. Our money will be used to bailout failed ESM member state banks (ESM Treaty - Article 15)

It can be - and then we'll part own those banks. In turn, ESM money could also be used to take the burden of our banks off us, which is something I thought you wanted.

It has been stated before that the fund would not be equipped to deal with both Spain and Italy. The fund would have to be bigger.

Having seen some pretty good analyses of likely Spanish funding needs, I think that's simply untrue. And Italy isn't yet holding out the begging bowl at all.

The fact that the ESM member states have to pool money together as a unit to bail out failed ESM member state banks is a foolish concept. We already bailed out our failed Irish banks and added it to the national debt, we do not need to do it again with EU banks.

Governments will bail out banks - they do it in every crisis, for any bank over a reasonable size. This way the costs are spread - my main worry would actually be the reverse of yours, which is that it produces moral hazard.

After all, the main problem with bailing out our banks was that they were three and half times the size of our economy.

You are really accepting of everything in this treaty! ESM board being immune from legal action, where is the accountability?

The accountability is to the governments, much as in any other sort of civil service role. The governments, in turn, are accountable to their parliaments and people. Why do the IMF have similar immunities?

I fundamentally disagree with bailing out failed banks.

Yes, i can see that.

Question - do you think our debt is sustainable? We require a debt writedown, I would rather pull the plaster off now than drag this out for another 5 years.

Yes, I think it's sustainable, as does the IMF and a number of economists. The figures for debt sustainability work if we get even slight growth (as in about 0.5%). If we slip back into recession, then we may need a writedown - but currently people are calling for one not because we need one, but because we'd like one.

It is perfectly reasonable for some no voters to call for that as there is a vaccum currently with on-going discussion in europe.

But not reasonable to then claim that Richard Bruton saying it means he wants to "end democracy". It just highlights the No side's "one rule for them, another rule for us". Plus, of course, I know that despite saying it's safe to vote No because you'll get a second referendum, the No side at that second referendum will be claiming it's an affront to democracy. They did exactly the same at Nice 1 & 2.

Iceland. Denmark. Look them up as you are scaremongering. We are following a japanese style crash at present.

Eh, you can say that, but you can't prove it, because it's just hand-waving.

Rabble rabble.

Hand-waving begets hand-waving. If your claims rely on everything being just wonderful, they fall into the "free puppy" class.

Scare mongering. 18 billion has to be tackled regardless and you know this. It doesnt matter if its now or in 5 years time, the debt is unsustainable. In 5 years time we would have paid over 30 billion in interest repayments for the national debt. But more debt over more years = more chance of growth?

It's a realistic portrayal of what removing €18bn from the economy does. People are arguing against slow cuts because they dampen the economy, and totally failing to apply the same logic to large cuts.

We have to yet to see this play out. Agree to disagree.

No, it's just illegal.

Agreed...but the mainstream parties use it as a major part of the yes vote. The trump card is indeed the funding position.

Eh, mainstream parties. They're all "free puppies" at the best of times.

The fact the government refuses is a reason to vote no.

No it isn't - you're saying we should vote No because the government won't. Which is all very well, but only works if you want a No anyway. It's not a reason in itself.

It is happening on both sides.

Sure, but you're setting the bars at different heights.

More rabble rabble. There is no political will to tackle the deficit and the debt will be strung around our necks unless action is taken.

Action is being taken - that's what a large part of the No side is complaining about. Balancing the budget more quickly means more service cuts and more taxes more quickly - which, as I said, takes money out of the economy, resulting in a shrinking tax base, a larger welfare roll, and an expanding deficit. The argument against austerity isn't false - there just isn't anywhere to give us the money not to do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You can disagree with me when I say that the Irish are better off than billions of people all you want but the fact remains.

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is that if you consider poverty in pure fiscal terms then you miss a lot. Poverty of oppurtunity across several generations is (to my mind) maintained and encouraged by the EU. Have you ever been to the social housing estates of Spain, or seen the poverty in rural and urban Greece or France or Italy? I am not claiming a huge conspiracy theory here, I am just recording what I actually see; it is just how what we have constructed (The EU) works. That imbalance has to be reformed or we need to admit failure and start again.

We live in a country with a high standard of living, good support for the poor and plenty of opportunity including the freedom (thanks to the EU) of being able to move throughout Europe and expand our horizons .

Again, you need to add, 'For some....'

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is missing there is 'Some in Ireland have the highest.....' All across Europe there are masses of people living lives in varying degrees of poverty. WE by our choices over the years have allowed the EU to be what it is; an entity that only works for some.

There is nothing to have stopped us trying to tackle this at domestic level or from trying in the future. That though is a matter for a general election not a referendum.

A no vote will not force our government, much less any other government in the EU, to take even one step on the road to your alternative utopia.

antoobrien

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is that if you consider poverty in pure fiscal terms then you miss a lot. Poverty of oppurtunity across several generations is (to my mind) maintained and encouraged by the EU. Have you ever been to the social housing estates of Spain, or seen the poverty in rural and urban Greece or France or Italy? I am not claiming a huge conspiracy theory here, I am just recording what I actually see; it is just how what we have constructed (The EU) works. That imbalance has to be reformed or we need to admit failure and start again.



Again, you need to add, 'For some....'

I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with that. The EU has not done anything of the sort. Here in Ireland the social conditions you described were around before we joined the EEC in '72. The social deprivation across Europe is a legacy of the various struggles, both internal and external, that have been going on for centuries. For France - there's been two world wars that have affected them, for Spain Franco. Greece is only 20 years out of a military dictatorship and is as corrupt as it has ever been (and very much the cause of its own demise), much the same goes for Italy.

You only need to look at the tenement situation here in Ireland (Angela's Ashes isn't that long ago) to see how the country has changed for the better and continues to change for the better under the EU. The amount of structural funding we get to bring us near the level of the other countries is astounding.

We have free college fees here. There are some courses that are funded from Europe. That's not for some, that's for anybody who's good enough.

Happyman42

View wrote: »

There is nothing to have stopped us trying to tackle this at domestic level or from trying in the future.

Yes there was something stopping us; the slavish devotion to the EU ideal of FG and FF. The stability of Europe before the people.
The growth of FF personal greed (sustained by the EU gravy train)didn't help either.

A no vote will not force our government, much less any other government in the EU, to take even one step on the road to your alternative utopia.

Maybe not, but morally I have to do what is right. A Yes vote maintains the status quo, a No vote would at the very least make them think again.

p.s. I don't believe them when they say we will be cut off. Lucinda Creighton's smug and arrogant performance on Vinny Browne last night convinced me of that.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is that if you consider poverty in pure fiscal terms then you miss a lot. Poverty of oppurtunity across several generations is (to my mind) maintained and encouraged by the EU. Have you ever been to the social housing estates of Spain, or seen the poverty in rural and urban Greece or France or Italy? I am not claiming a huge conspiracy theory here, I am just recording what I actually see; it is just how what we have constructed (The EU) works. That imbalance has to be reformed or we need to admit failure and start again.
Again, you need to add, 'For some....'

This is a very large claim, though. We can all agree that poverty exists - both material and in terms of opportunity, but the claim that the EU has "maintained and encouraged it" is something I think even UKIP would have difficulty stating with a straight face.

How does the EU "maintain and encourage" such poverty? Are you sure you're not simply mixing up the EU with how modern economies work?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with that. The EU has not done anything of the sort. Here in Ireland the social conditions you described were around before we joined the EEC in '72. The social deprivation across Europe is a legacy of the various struggles, both internal and external, that have been going on for centuries. For France - there's been two world wars that have affected them, for Spain Franco. Greece is only 20 years out of a military dictatorship and is as corrupt as it has ever been (and very much the cause of its own demise), much the same goes for Italy.

You only need to look at the tenement situation here in Ireland (Angela's Ashes isn't that long ago) to see how the country has changed for the better and continues to change for the better under the EU. The amount of structural funding we get to bring us near the level of the other countries is astounding.

We have free college fees here. There are some courses that are funded from Europe. That's not for some, that's for anybody who's good enough.

You think free fees opens up the route to college for all who are good enough?
The level of poverty is not the point. The point is that after all the years of the EU, the gap between the have's and the have not's has not really changed.
Honestly, I can't look my children in the face and do something that says I agree with that or do something that copperfastens the prospect of them living in a similar Europe.
I am casting my vote in an attempt to call a halt and to say...I want the EU to change direction. I have no other avenue to do that, I'm making a political decision.

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes there was something stopping us; the slavish devotion to the EU ideal of FG and FF. The stability of Europe before the people.
The growth of FF personal greed (sustained by the EU gravy train)didn't help either.

We have had many a genral election between 1972 and today. Plenty of time for us to have tackled it or failing that even to have debated it. I don't recall it featuring in any meaningful way in any of those election campaigns.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe not, but morally I have to do what is right. A Yes vote maintains the status quo, a No vote would at the very least make them think again.

Well, no it won't since any thinking "they'll" do doesn't have to relate to anything you favour - it'd most likely be regarded as a complaint about loss of "the good life" rather than a burning desire for greater social justice.

Happyman42 wrote: »

p.s. I don't believe them when they say we will be cut off. Lucinda Creighton's smug and arrogant performance on Vinny Browne last night convinced me of that.

Fair enough - hopefully you'll win and we can watch what happens should we then find ourselves cut off - I am sure there'll be no negative effect on poverty or other social justice issues should the state find itself unable to fund our welfare or education systems, right?

Happyman42

View wrote: »

We have had many a genral election between 1972 and today. Plenty of time for us to have tackled it or failing that even to have debated it. I don't recall it featuring in any meaningful way in any of those election campaigns.

I think this crisis in Europe is revealing a lot to the ordinary voter. People are a lot more aware of how it all really works and they don't like it in ever increasing numbers. I think the very real prospect of a party like Sinn Fein sharing power is indicitive of that fact. So I am hopeful of change, maybe I am a deluded optimist.

Well, no it won't since any thinking "they'll" do doesn't have to relate to anything you favour - it'd most likely be regarded as a complaint about loss of "the good life" rather than a burning desire for greater social justice.



Fair enough - hopefully you'll win and we can watch what happens should we then find ourselves cut off - I am sure there'll be no negative effect on poverty or other social justice issues should the state find itself unable to fund our welfare or education systems, right?

As I said before there are negative effects coming no matter which way we go. It's a case of which way will bring a lasting and equal stability?

The Greeks got a deal, if we Vote No we have a better chance of a deal.