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

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

That's funny, because your posts seem to suggest you haven't a clue how it really works, but please, enlighten me... how does the EU work to increase social injustice?

It would be nice to get a few primary sources with that, and I don't mean opinion pieces, if you don't mind...

meglome

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Want to explain this?

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Yeah this is the deal they got

antoobrien wrote: »

Greece has external debts over well over €500 billion vs GDP of about €250 billion. Exports (€16b) are outweighed by imports (€48b) by 3/1.

Their austerity package reportedly includes:
Cuts

• 20% PS pay cut
• 1 year cut of 60% for 30,000 PS workers
• 20% cut on monthly pensions above €1k
• 40% cut on monthly pensions at the same level for existing retirees under 55
• Health spending to be cut by €2.1 billion between 2011 & 2015
• Education spending to be trimmed through merging or closing of 1,976 schools
• Total defence cuts of approx €1.5 billion between 2011-2015

Taxes

• Taxable income threshold reduced from €12k to €5k (ours reduced from €18,500 to €16,000)
• A " "solidarity levy”" of between one and five per cent per household, which will be raised twice in 2012 "
• Excise duty to go up by 33%
• Luxury tax on items like pools, yachts etc (I'd like to see that one here)
• VAT rise (unspecified)

Privitisation

• Sell 10% of the national telecoms provider for €400m
• "Selling stakes in various banks, utilities, ports, airports and land holdings in 2011/2012"

Looks fantasic - lets sign up for that

Scofflaw

Just to highlight the rather bizarre nature of the claim that the Eu maintains and encourages poverty - this is a map of the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality) by US state:



This is Europe, the same scale and colours:



Every country on the map there, bar Turkey, is less unequal than every US state - and the the twenty countries in the world with the lowest Gini scores are all present on that map.

Within Europe, there are differences - this is a more detailed scale:



Perhaps unsurprisingly, we can observe that the differences are between the more "European" core and the less "European" periphery, as well as between older members and newer members.

A claim that the EU maintains and encourages poverty, as I said, seems bizarre - if that's the case, what the heck is everybody else doing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

Even if it means asking things an awful lot worse for lots of the poorer people first?

Is this a variation on the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero strategy? Or, to phrase it another way, bad and all as things may be, yes things can get worse...

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

I don't think I am mixing them up. Go back to the agriculture example. Ultimately, EU policy has meant that, though a culture of subsidy and restrictions, we in Ireland have a sector that cannot sustain itself now without that subsidy. Huge numbers who used to work the land have now disappeared into urban areas in search of employment and so began the rise of the urban sprawl around our cities. Some did well, but many did not. That is not their own faults.
The EU then aided and abeted exploitation of those workers and member states by large corporations. Dell leaving Limerick being a case in point. That they have moved on to exploit the cheap workforce and utilities of Poland is the fault of the EU. A business should not be allowed to up sticks and move to a cheaper zone like that, imo. Certainly not within the EU and not with their blessing. Many, many businesses have stayed and prospered because they have a loyalty to their workforces. The quest for ever greater profit is not their primary concern. Yes, the corporations brought huge wealth and a rise in living standards, but what good is that when they can just as quickly leave? The Poles will one day face the same scenario.
On the whole, the EU is too restrictive in some areas and not enough when it comes to exploitation, by what to me, are pariahs. You can throw Banks, bondholders and stockbrokers into that mix as well. There are real people on the recieving end of their greed fueled activities as we now know only too well. Will the EU in it's present form do anything about that? No they won't.

bedrock#1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to highlight the rather bizarre nature of the claim that the Eu maintains and encourages poverty - this is a map of the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality) by US state:



This is Europe, the same scale and colours:



Every country on the map there, bar Turkey, is less unequal than every US state - and the the twenty countries in the world with the lowest Gini scores are all present on that map.

Within Europe, there are differences - this is a more detailed scale:



Perhaps unsurprisingly, we can observe that the differences are between the more "European" core and the less "European" periphery, as well as between older members and newer members.

A claim that the EU maintains and encourages poverty, as I said, seems bizarre - if that's the case, what the heck is everybody else doing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Means nothing - comparing income inequality across countries is notoriously inaccurate and misleading

Also - to use this as an example of the absence of poverty maintenance over time is also false - it is a well known criticism of the Gini coefficient that it is simply a snap-shot in time and can in no way be used to measure inequality longitudinally.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

A claim that the EU maintains and encourages poverty, as I said, seems bizarre - if that's the case, what the heck is everybody else doing?

Only if you're claiming that the EU maintains or encourages more inequality relative to the US or elsewhere.

If I'm destroying some of my harvest, and nearby my more productive neighbour is destroying more of his harvest, we're still both destroying our harvest.

My animals won't feel any more content knowing that they are hungry that winter, but less hungry than the animals my neighbour keeps.

It's not really clear what the point of referencing the US is here. I think Europe has a serious problem with agreeing upon and implementing much of the progressive social policy it once promised - or seemed to promise. There are serious problems with inequality both across the regions of Europe and within member states.

Saying that thing are worse elsewhere is a bit like dismissing Irish corruption by showing us how bad things are in Nigeria.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Means nothing - comparing income inequality across countries is notoriously inaccurate and misleading

Also - to use this as an example of the absence of poverty maintenance over time is also false - it is a well known criticism of the Gini coefficient that it is simply a snap-shot in time and can in no way be used to measure inequality longitudinally.

Amazing that you dismiss Scofflaw's post because you question the methodology of the research upon which it is based, but wholeheartedly accept Happyman's contention that the EU 'maintains and encourages inequality' which has no research, no evidence, no explanation, no examples and not a shred of argument to support it.

It beggars belief.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think I am mixing them up. Go back to the agriculture example. Ultimately, EU policy has meant that, though a culture of subsidy and restrictions, we in Ireland have a sector that cannot sustain itself now without that subsidy. Huge numbers who used to work the land have now disappeared into urban areas in search of employment and so began the rise of the urban sprawl around our cities. Some did well, but many did not. That is not their own faults.

OK, this is badly confused, even using only what you've said. If Irish farmers are only maintaining themselves in some cases in farming by virtue of EU subsidies, then those EU subsidies are actually keeping them from joining the urban workforce.

Irish farming subsidies were introduced by CJH as a response to exactly the rural depopulation you're blaming on subsidies, which was very very much sharper and faster before them.

Also, urban sprawl is a bad planning outcome, not a necessary result of urbanisation.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The EU then aided and abeted exploitation of those workers and member states by large corporations. Dell leaving Limerick being a case in point. That they have moved on to exploit the cheap workforce and utilities of Poland is the fault of the EU. A business should not be allowed to up sticks and move to a cheaper zone like that, imo. Certainly not within the EU and not with their blessing. Many, many businesses have stayed and prospered because they have a loyalty to their workforces. The quest for ever greater profit is not their primary concern. Yes, the corporations brought huge wealth and a rise in living standards, but what good is that when they can just as quickly leave? The Poles will one day face the same scenario.

And this one is simply the reverse of what actually happened. Before the EU, there was absolutely nothing stopping race to the bottom style competition between states, with every country offering whatever subsidies it thought would net it the investment. In the Dell/Poland case, the EU had to rule on whether the Polish were in fact offering an unfair/illegal inducement to Dell to move to a cheaper location - which was cheaper because, being in the EU for a much shorter time than Ireland, it is a heck of a lot poorer than Ireland.

In other words, the EU constituted a barrier to Poland inducing Dell to move, but you are setting it up as the facilitator of the move because in this case the money Poland offered was not an illegal subsidy. Failure to prevent something = to blame for it, even though without the EU there would be no barrier at all to Poland offering whatever they liked.

That's anti-logic of the first order.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On the whole, the EU is too restrictive in some areas and not enough when it comes to exploitation, by what to me, are pariahs. You can throw Banks, bondholders and stockbrokers into that mix as well. There are real people on the recieving end of their greed fueled activities as we now know only too well. Will the EU in it's present form do anything about that? No they won't.

To be honest, given the examples above, I don't think you have a clue what the EU is, or what it does, or how you'd go about determining whether it's doing a good job or not.

That's rather harsh, perhaps, but those examples basically say that loud and clear. They're complete nonsense. Your factual claims are all wrong, from inequality to subsidies, and your logic is in reverse.

rather harshly,
Scofflaw

karlth

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Just to clarify: Iceland didn't use any of the IMF loans to pay off any debts. They were simply used bolster the currency reserve (at considerable cost), but never used. Having an independent currency means that Iceland (unlike Ireland) has to maintain a currency reserve, which can be expensive.

I'm not sure what bank debt you are referring too? Icesave? If so then it is unlikely the icelandic government will have to pay anything as the fallen bank had enough assets to cover all claims from the UK and Netherlands.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Only if you're claiming that the EU maintains or encourages more inequality relative to the US or elsewhere.

If I'm destroying some of my harvest, and nearby my more productive neighbour is destroying more of his harvest, we're still both destroying our harvest.

My animals won't feel any more content knowing that they are hungry that winter, but less hungry than the animals my neighbour keeps.

It's not really clear what the point of referencing the US is here. I think Europe has a serious problem with agreeing upon and implementing much of the progressive social policy it once promised - or seemed to promise. There are serious problems with inequality both across the regions of Europe and within member states.

The US offers the main alternative model for advanced economies.

later12 wrote: »

Saying that thing are worse elsewhere is a bit like dismissing Irish corruption by showing us how bad things are in Nigeria.

On the other hand, pointing out that the EU has not solved its problems does not support a claim that the EU maintains and encourages those problems. There's a beam in one eye, and a mote in the other, and you have, as usual, picked up on the mote.

regards,
Scofflaw

bedrock#1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Amazing that you dismiss Scofflaw's post because you question the methodology of the research upon which it is based, but wholeheartedly accept Happyman's contention that the EU 'maintains and encourages inequality' which has no research, no evidence, no explanation, no examples and not a shred of argument to support it.

It beggars belief.

There are a number of studies that do suggest inequality arising from regional integration such as been happening in Europe since the 70s.

Also, don't put words in my mouth, you seem to think you can attribute tacit acceptance of Happyman's argument on my behalf but I'd rather you left my decisions to me.

Scofflaw

karlth wrote: »

Just to clarify: Iceland didn't use any of the IMF loans to pay off any debts. They were simply used bolster the currency reserve (at considerable cost), but never used. Having an independent currency means that Iceland (unlike Ireland) has to maintain a currency reserve, which can be expensive.

Fair point.

karlth wrote: »

I'm not sure what bank debt you are referring too? Icesave? If so then it is unlikely the icelandic government will have to pay anything as the fallen bank had enough assets to cover all claims from the UK and Netherlands.

Sure - "Iceland" is used very loosely there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

The US offers the main alternative model for advanced economies.

Not really, certainly not in terms of the Gini coefficient where it ranks about #40.

My point is that the poster you referred to was not comparing the EU to Haiti, Honduras, Ohio or South Sudan. There's nothing particularly controversial or surprising about pointing out social problems in Europe, particularly in the peripheral economies he mentioned. Of course, I'm not in the least bit surprised that any apparent criticism of European institutional structures would meet with your deepest disbelief so perhaps we'll leave it there.

I wonder if there is an EU equivalent of that pretty unbearable USA chant.

Scofflaw

bedrock#1 wrote: »

There are a number of studies that do suggest inequality arising from regional integration such as been happening in Europe since the 70s.

Also, don't put words in my mouth, you seem to think you can attribute tacit acceptance of Happyman's argument on my behalf but I'd rather you left my decisions to me.

There are, indeed, very many studies on European inequality across the board. I certainly wouldn't argue that the EU has in any sense come anywhere near "solving" inequality or poverty, and some actions will have increased it, or redistributed it.

And I'd also agree with later12's point that the "social Europe" aspect of the EU has been very much in abeyance over the last couple of decades - but that's hardly surprising, because the EU is essentially a framework for joint action by the European states, and those states have all been right of centre for that period. The EU reflects what the Member State governments want, and those governments reflect what the people of those countries want. And people wanted the boom, wanted a bit more Boston than Berlin - they didn't want the downside, of course, and they're finding the switch back to Berlin uncomfortably un-boomy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

bedrock#1 wrote: »

There are a number of studies that do suggest inequality arising from regional integration such as been happening in Europe since the 70s.

Also, don't put words in my mouth, you seem to think you can attribute tacit acceptance of Happyman's argument on my behalf but I'd rather you left my decisions to me.

Care to share on the former? Apologies on the latter.

Edit: Withdrawing the request for the studies, I misread and thought you had said there were studies which showed the EU had encouraged inequality, as was claimed, but you didn't.

fsexplained

An unofficial video guide to the Fiscal Stability Treaty has just been published on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJqVL1Z5DVs

Apologies to Mods, already posted here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78926665&postcount=920).

[MOD]The video is actually a good explanation of the Treaty, and does not call for a vote either way, or introduce any extraneous issues, so I'm allowing it on this occasion. In general, please post a summary of a video - in this case, though, the summary is basically "explains the treaty".[/MOD]

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, this is badly confused, even using only what you've said. If Irish farmers are only maintaining themselves in some cases in farming by virtue of EU subsidies, then those EU subsidies are actually keeping them from joining the urban workforce.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say or show here.

Irish farming subsidies were introduced by CJH as a response to exactly the rural depopulation you're blaming on subsidies, which was very very much sharper and faster before them.

Also, urban sprawl is a bad planning outcome, not a necessary result of urbanisation.

I am going on what I see around me Scofflaw. The real effects if you will. I live in a semi rural area, my parents worked on farms before moving off them to find employment. There was huge monies pumped in from Europe since we joined, my point is that, while some of that was good, ultimately it may have been misguided. For example; I grew up watching the policy of Intervention at work. I witnessed the huge wages coming out of meat factories and the businesses that fed on a farming boom subsidised by Brussels. I was taking home wage packets of 4 and 5 hundred pounds for a summer job in the late 70's! Skilled boners where earning wages of over a 1000 pounds a week in the 70's and the 80's. It was crazy and unsustainable, a bubble that the EU seems hellbent on creating. I also saw the huge fiddling of the Intervention Scheme too, many many people grew fat on diverting the funds or by the many scams and fiddles. I also saw the demise of that boom and saw men and women consigned to the scrap heap as a result.
Nobody, at any time cried halt, because all the levels where capitalising on the boom, but guess who paid for the bust in reality? The same people who are paying for this bust. This bust, that happened because the very same thing was allowed to happen in the construction and mortgage sector. A bubble.
I see, from my personal experience, how the whole EU project operates tbh and I know who will always carry the can after it is emptied.

And this one is simply the reverse of what actually happened. Before the EU, there was absolutely nothing stopping race to the bottom style competition between states, with every country offering whatever subsidies it thought would net it the investment. In the Dell/Poland case, the EU had to rule on whether the Polish were in fact offering an unfair/illegal inducement to Dell to move to a cheaper location - which was cheaper because, being in the EU for a much shorter time than Ireland, it is a heck of a lot poorer than Ireland.

In other words, the EU constituted a barrier to Poland inducing Dell to move, but you are setting it up as the facilitator of the move because in this case the money Poland offered was not an illegal subsidy. Failure to prevent something = to blame for it, even though without the EU there would be no barrier at all to Poland offering whatever they liked.

My point is that countries should not have been allowed to offer subsidys for that kind of move nor should big business be allowed to accept them at the expense of somewhere else. It is a philosophy based on moral behaviour not on profit. Activity like that is counterproductive if you have the living standards of REAL people at the core of your concerns, of course that doesn't pertain in Brussels as we well know, but it should.

To be honest, given the examples above, I don't think you have a clue what the EU is, or what it does, or how you'd go about determining whether it's doing a good job or not.

That's rather harsh, perhaps, but those examples basically say that loud and clear. They're complete nonsense. Your factual claims are all wrong, from inequality to subsidies, and your logic is in reverse.

To be honest, I think the way that you and our politicians depict how the EU operates is different to the realities. Ask yourself, who has gained most from the existence of the EU and who will continue to gain and who will continue to pay? It has always been the same.

simonsez

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Personally I'll probably be voting No to this as I really don't like the idea of Merkle & Sarkozy having that kind of control over us. I do believe we need to remain part of the EU if we are to stand any chance of getting out of this recession but not like this.

It seems to me however that a lot of people are voting No purely to get one up on the Government and that is simply not a good enough way to vote. If we start basing all our voting decisions on what will piss the government off the most then we stand a good chance voting against something we really ought to vote for, or voting in favour of something we should be against.

If you want to vote No by all means do so, just make sure you do it for the right reasons, and not because you are angry and bitter and want to give Enda K the finger.

I would agree it is never a good choice to vote just to have a go at a government.

However Im going no . Shane Ross is making sense and all the parties (I know SF are No however they always say No to EU/EEC) including FF are going ' its great yay' one has to go hmmm . All these guys went 'yay' in 2008 with the banks (i know labour didn't). I understand the wording but neither side know what are the implications for Ireland until the big meet in June . I just get the impression that we had to wait before Hollande came demanding growth, even the G8 want this however our guys had no problems signing up before growth was part of it the discussion.We really should wait post-June. Lets see what the big boys do. Germany, France , Holland etc . Then we should vote voting yes now is just bad timing.

simonsez

Ronnie Binge wrote: »

I would want a hell of a lot of intelligent persuasion from sources other than Cóir, the Socialist Workers Party and Sinn Féin that voting no was the right thing to do.

was in same boat until Shane Ross stepped in.

Godge

simonsez wrote: »

was in same boat until Shane Ross stepped in.

Is that the same Shane Ross who called Sean Fitzpatrick a superstar and was a supporter of Michael Fingleton until the end.

See this for example

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fingers-sidelines-a-sorry-soden-478772.html


Askaboutmoney has a full thread on his twisting and turning, unfortunately Shane appears to have taken down some of the links from his own website.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=156055


his credibility is about the same as David mcWilliams. It is unbelievable that in the last general election people actually voted for two of the cherrleaders of the property boom - Mr. Ross and Mick Wallace.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Is that the same Shane Ross who called Sean Fitzpatrick a superstar and was a supporter of Michael Fingleton until the end.

See this for example

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fingers-sidelines-a-sorry-soden-478772.html


Askaboutmoney has a full thread on his twisting and turning, unfortunately Shane appears to have taken down some of the links from his own website.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=156055


his credibility is about the same as David mcWilliams. It is unbelievable that in the last general election people actually voted for two of the cherrleaders of the property boom - Mr. Ross and Mick Wallace.

Michael Martin is supporting a Yes vote so you'll be voting No as well?

Wild Bill

Another point worth mentioning is that this absurd pro-cyclical treaty is pointless as the euro is doomed.

Spain is on the cusp of a full-blown bailout; probably even before the Greek elections.

With tax revenue vanishing like snow in June, massive capital flight and paralysis of business because everyone is hoarding euro and waiting to pay debts in the new drachma - the game is up for Greece.

And the idea that it will stop there is bull; spin from the same euro-fanatics who engineered this European catastrophe.

Time fearful deluded Irish to join the brave democrats across Europe and send the "elite" a clear message - vote NO

Read all about it (as apparently my opinions are worthless unless someone else on the internet has shared them )

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-spain-euro-idUSBRE84S0W420120529

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXTM6LTSo2Wd9GmaROggIVSvvUtA?docId=ae7ef885ff7042a6b72f8add313529e6

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/05/28/the-end-of-the-euro-a-survivors-guide/

Wild Bill

Godge wrote: »

It is unbelievable that in the last general election people actually voted for two of the cherrleaders of the property boom - Mr. Ross and Mick Wallace.

Even more unbelievable that they voted in far greater numbers for FG and Labour who spent most of the boom calling for ever more spending and less taxes!

simonsez

Happyman42 wrote: »

Michael Martin is supporting a Yes vote so you'll be voting No as well?

aye, the facts you have highlighted are why? Because he is from that elite ilk and he understands what our masters really want.

leincar

Dear Lord, hear your errant child. I have broken most of your commandments, usually with glee. I have sinned mightily and yet live in the knowledge that I shall when I ask, be forgiven.

But Lord, I am about to vote NO, which places me on the same side of this issue as the left. And worse it places me in the same camp as Sinn Féin. Which frankly, Lord is about as respectable as being a drug pusher munching on a Panda Fois Gras sandwich having just committed certain sexual acts which are illegal in at least half the states of America.

Lord, I know that there is no forgiveness possible, that as of Thursday, I am forever damned. But like Huckleberry Finn when he decided to free Jim, I reckon I'm just wicked and there ain't nothing for it but to be wicked.

(Please no one take offence, just my way of admitting defeat and voting No.)

Happyman42

Lucinda Creighton last night refused to rule out second vote on this treaty and tonight Joan Burton does the same thing. The con is on methinks.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Lucinda Creighton last night refused to rule out second vote on this treaty and tonight Joan Burton does the same thing. The con is on methinks.

Would that be the second vote that the 'no' side are demanding?

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Lucinda Creighton last night refused to rule out second vote on this treaty and tonight Joan Burton does the same thing. The con is on methinks.

But No voters are calling for exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw