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

Mance Rayder

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

It is a good question oscarBravo, one which has been asked before and is yet to be answered, no one has even made an attempt to answer it.

I will echo the question again:

Any 'No' advocates care to tell the rest of us why it is OK for the No' side to call for a second vote on the referendum and not for the 'Yes' side?

simonsez

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.

happy man, i get the feeling that the reactions on the doorsteps are biting. folk aren't accepting the con. folk have had enough and when Europe itself wont ratify austerity without a rethink and growth why should we?

However our elected betters were willing to sign off on this in our name before talks of growth, before the french election before the dutch parliament budget and the g8 meeting. Christ even Merkal has blinked.

Ah sure with a cap in me hand and top o d morning to ya sir.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

There are many shades to the 'No side' which have different concerns and demands. It's fairly typical to brand them all as one....suits some peoples agenda, I suppose.
Now, our Government (those who we are entrusting with our future) has twice, refused to answer a straight and important question and another senior ranking member has let 'slip' that there would have to be another vote.
Later corrected but a phycologist would have great fun explaining why that thought was in his head in the first place. He doesn't blurt out that he would like a cucumber and jam sandwich, because that thought is not in his head.

Do those events not give you cause for concern? Imagine FF in power and doing that? Are people not being a bit reckless here?

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

But No voters are calling for exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Never mind those on the No side who have called for it for a different reason. Why are they refusing to answer the question, what iyo are we not being told. (again!):rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...another senior ranking member has let 'slip' that there would have to be another vote.

No, he didn't. It suited a particular dishonest agenda to pretend that that's what he said, and it clearly suits your agenda to accept the distorted version rather than what he actually said.

Either way: are we now accepting the truism that there's nothing undemocratic about voting twice on the same treaty? I don't see a problem with it; but then, I didn't see a problem with it before.

Ronin247

CiscoStudent wrote: »

It is a good question oscarBravo, one which has been asked before and is yet to be answered, no one has even made an attempt to answer it.

I will echo the question again:

Any 'No' advocates care to tell the rest of us why it is OK for the No' side to call for a second vote on the referendum and not for the 'Yes' side?

The no side wanted it postponed, but as that is not possible they want a no vote and then see what is actually in the treaty when French,German,Greek etc. issues are decided,if there are significant changes we would be better off seeing them before ratifying it.

The yes side will want a second vote because they lost.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, he didn't. It suited a particular dishonest agenda to pretend that that's what he said, and it clearly suits your agenda to accept the distorted version rather than what he actually said.

Either way: are we now accepting the truism that there's nothing undemocratic about voting twice on the same treaty? I don't see a problem with it; but then, I didn't see a problem with it before.

Are you going to have a stab at why they won't answer the question or not?
You are happy that your government fudges on important questions? FF must have loved you, we are on the same merry-go-round again

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you going to have a stab at why they won't answer the question or not?

I'm guessing because it's a stupid red herring. It's precisely the sort of merry-go-round that reflexive oppositionist parties love to try to spin the debate out onto.

I'd have a lot more respect for the 'no' camp if they didn't try to score cheap points by raising spurious issues and cackling gleefully when the government refuse to be drawn into their stupidity, but that's clearly a standard of debate that's way too high for many of them.

simonsez

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, he didn't. It suited a particular dishonest agenda to pretend that that's what he said, and it clearly suits your agenda to accept the distorted version rather than what he actually said.

Either way: are we now accepting the truism that there's nothing undemocratic about voting twice on the same treaty? I don't see a problem with it; but then, I didn't see a problem with it before.

right on OS. at least we might shake up our elected reps and makem do a better job when they go to europe on our behalf . Will that happen? maybe the jetlag is catchin' up on our Taoiseach and am sure all the celebratory parties last year up and down the country must be taking their toll. Mind you that did help the hotel trade.

simonsez

Ronin247 wrote: »

The no side wanted it postponed, but as that is not possible they want a no vote and then see what is actually in the treaty when French,German,Greek etc. issues are decided,if there are significant changes we would be better off seeing them before ratifying it.

The yes side will want a second vote because they lost.

So true Ronin, win win for everyone.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm guessing because it's a stupid red herring. It's precisely the sort of merry-go-round that reflexive oppositionist parties love to try to spin the debate out onto.

I'd have a lot more respect for the 'no' camp if they didn't try to score cheap points by raising spurious issues and cackling gleefully when the government refuse to be drawn into their stupidity, but that's clearly a standard of debate that's way too high for many of them.

:D You do remember FF?

Now, are you going to have that stab?


p.s I don't require your respect, I require you to answer as honestly as you can.

Corben Dallas

No.

The ('Stability' LOL) >>> Fiscal treaty will just copper fasten decades of austerity for Ireland, sanctioned by EU (Berlin), the water charges and ESPECIALLY the Property Charges coming (Negative Equity.. LOL we dont give a flying ****) (demanded by IMF as condition of getting bailout) is just the start, It will fast track many more billions the EU will take out of the Irish Economy.

In a few years we could likely all be paying 60% tax (even low paid) with stealth taxes (costing 1000's per annum) on top of this. And If you complain, the EU will just say you signed the Fiscal Treaty. These binding fiscal controls will just keep bleeding the Irish taxpayer dry.

---

Handy tip in negotiating, if the Government agrees to everything put in front of them by IMF/EU/ ECB ..... >> you get nothing. If Contagion in Financial markets is what the EU fears most then it has a value to our government to bargain with.

---

The county is already being run largely by Berlin,
>>> the Germans knowing about the 23% Vat before the budget is released. >>> The sale of Irish Government 'Family silver' (State Assets)
" ... lacking in its ambition and might mean that we require a second bailout" etc << allegedly leaked internal memos Between Dublin and Berlin.

A Yes Vote will more of less give total fiscal control to all taxation, corporate Taxation, Overseas Investment, etc., because key policy decisions will be made outside our control that wont suit Ireland but works fine for Berlin.

Ireland the 'Soft Touch' of Europe. Vote NO.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D You do remember FF?

Clearly. I'm not sure what your point is, or indeed whether you have one.

Now, are you going to have that stab?

I did. Re-read my reply, slowly if necessary.

p.s I don't require your respect, I require you to answer as honestly as you can.

I've answered your question. Perhaps you can explain why you're obsessing about this particular red herring.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clearly. I'm not sure what your point is, or indeed whether you have one. I did. Re-read my reply, slowly if necessary. I've answered your question. Perhaps you can explain why you're obsessing about this particular red herring.

You called it a red herring. Fine.
Now, again....why do you think they are refusing to answer the question. If it's a red herring why not just answer. Are they sailing blithely into this without a plan, are you happy with that?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

You called it a red herring. Fine.
Now, again....why do you think they are refusing to answer the question.

Because discussing red herrings is an exercise in futility, as this conversation shows.

Richard Bruton made a quip about the consequences of a 'no' vote being such as to make the electorate ask for an opportunity to vote again (that's the honest version of the dishonest narrative you were peddling earlier). His opponents seized on this, distorted it, and tried to use it as a cudgel to beat the government with: sure we'll get another chance to vote, so there's absolutely no downside to voting 'no' this time.

Now, it's categorically untrue to say that there is no downside to an initial 'no' vote, but by allowing for the possibility of a second referendum, the opposition would immediately start fighting the second campaign, forcing the government to counter them, and muddying the water. Muddy water is a primary goal of the 'no' camp, so the government are doing the sensible thing and confining the discussion to the referendum we're actually having, rather than the putative second referendum that everyone who screamed loudly about second referendums being undemocratic in the past now seems to be calling for.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that if someone has a cudgel in his hand and is beckoning you down a dark alley, it's a wise strategy not to follow their lead.

Ted Mosby

simonsez wrote: »

happy man, i get the feeling that the reactions on the doorsteps are biting. folk aren't accepting the con. folk have had enough and when Europe itself wont ratify austerity without a rethink and growth why should we?

However our elected betters were willing to sign off on this in our name before talks of growth, before the french election before the dutch parliament budget and the g8 meeting. Christ even Merkal has blinked.

Ah sure with a cap in me hand and top o d morning to ya sir.

What doorsteps would that be? Nobody has rung the door here yet from any side.

meglome

Corben Dallas wrote: »

The ('Stability' LOL) >>> Fiscal treaty will just copper fasten decades of austerity for Ireland, sanctioned by EU (Berlin), the water charges and ESPECIALLY the Property Charges coming (Negative Equity.. LOL we dont give a flying ****) (demanded by IMF as condition of getting bailout) is just the start, It will fast track many more billions the EU will take out of the Irish Economy.

These kind of claims actually amaze me. We are borrowing one third of all government spending, there in a simple sentence is why we are having austerity.
Let's imagine tomorrow that Merkel told us to go out and spend like it was our last day, what do you think would happen? (Tip: we'd be having the exact same austerity as we borrow one third of all government spending).

Corben Dallas wrote: »

In a few years we could likely all be paying 60% tax (even low paid) with stealth taxes (costing 1000's per annum) on top of this. And If you complain, the EU will just say you signed the Fiscal Treaty. These binding fiscal controls will just keep bleeding the Irish taxpayer dry.

Anything is possible tax wise because we are borrowing one third of all government spending. Though the fiscal rules in this treaty are already the law here from previous agreements with Europe, some from 20 years ago. If you think a no vote will stop austerity (or balancing the books as many call it) you're very very wrong.

Corben Dallas wrote: »

Handy tip in negotiating, if the Government agrees to everything put in front of them by IMF/EU/ ECB ..... >> you get nothing. If Contagion in Financial markets is what the EU fears most then it has a value to our government to bargain with.

We don't owe enough to have any real power over Europe. They can afford to let us go, but we certainly can't afford to go.

Corben Dallas wrote: »

The county is already being run largely by Berlin,
>>> the Germans knowing about the 23% Vat before the budget is released. >>> The sale of Irish Government 'Family silver' (State Assets)
" ... lacking in its ambition and might mean that we require a second bailout" etc << allegedly leaked internal memos Between Dublin and Berlin.

Yes the Germans knowing exactly what they are entitled to know when the bailed us out.
I'd only call Irish state assets 'Family Silver' if we agree it's cheap plate silver. Is there a single state asset which gives good value to the taxpayer?
You guys would complain if they didn't plan for the possibility we'd need another bailout and yet will complain that they are.

Corben Dallas wrote: »

A Yes Vote will more of less give total fiscal control to all taxation, corporate Taxation, Overseas Investment, etc., because key policy decisions will be made outside our control that wont suit Ireland but works fine for Berlin.

Utterly and completely untrue. In fact I'm going to go further and say bollocks.

Corben Dallas wrote: »

Ireland the 'Soft Touch' of Europe. Vote NO.

Hopefully if people are voting no they are voting no for reasons other than the nonsense you posted.

Mance Rayder

Ted Mosby wrote: »

What doorsteps would that be? Nobody has rung the door here yet from any side.

Same here. I have had only 'no' propaganda put through my letterbox (lots of it) and the actual treaty itself.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because discussing red herrings is an exercise in futility, as this conversation shows.

Richard Bruton made a quip about the consequences of a 'no' vote being such as to make the electorate ask for an opportunity to vote again (that's the honest version of the dishonest narrative you were peddling earlier). His opponents seized on this, distorted it, and tried to use it as a cudgel to beat the government with: sure we'll get another chance to vote, so there's absolutely no downside to voting 'no' this time.

Now, it's categorically untrue to say that there is no downside to an initial 'no' vote, but by allowing for the possibility of a second referendum, the opposition would immediately start fighting the second campaign, forcing the government to counter them, and muddying the water. Muddy water is a primary goal of the 'no' camp, so the government are doing the sensible thing and confining the discussion to the referendum we're actually having, rather than the putative second referendum that everyone who screamed loudly about second referendums being undemocratic in the past now seems to be calling for.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that if someone has a cudgel in his hand and is beckoning you down a dark alley, it's a wise strategy not to follow their lead.

That's nonsense and you know it. There is either a plan or there isn't. It is dishonest of The Government to mislead or fudge the issues. If somebody uses it as a stick to beat them with, so be it. They must be and are mandated to be honest.

p.s. Coveney caught telling lies on Vinny Browne too. Same old, same old ****e, they are no different to the crooks who got us here in the first instance. :rolleyes:

Stuck Cone

This is how i feel about the upcoming referendum

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78919306&postcount=1

beeftotheheels

simonsez wrote: »

So true Ronin, win win for everyone.

Or the markets get spooked by us seeming as feckless as the Greek people voting for the impossible, our bond yields rise, we get downgraded, but no one has any time to think about minding us because everyone is more concerned about Spain, and German taxpayers, spooked by our (and Greek, extrapolated into general PIIGS) fecklessness take more action in front of the German Constitutional Court making it harder for the German Government to take any steps which might calm the crisis....

Lose lose for everyone is the alternative analysis.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's nonsense and you know it.

Oh I'm sorry, didn't I tell you what you wanted to hear?

There is either a plan or there isn't. It is dishonest of The Government to mislead or fudge the issues. If somebody uses it as a stick to beat them with, so be it. They must be and are mandated to be honest.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government. The short version is: their job is to do what they think is best for the country. If they feel that passing this referendum is in the country's best interest, and if they further feel that handing the opposition a stick to beat them with will damage their chances of getting this referendum passed, then they have a standing mandate not to be drawn into answering every red herring thrown at them.

You've yet to explain why you are so obsessive about the question of a second referendum.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, didn't I tell you what you wanted to hear? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government. The short version is: their job is to do what they think is best for the country. If they feel that passing this referendum is in the country's best interest, and if they further feel that handing the opposition a stick to beat them with will damage their chances of getting this referendum passed, then they have a standing mandate not to be drawn into answering every red herring thrown at them.

When, in your opinion, is it wrong for a Government to evade a question?

You've yet to explain why you are so obsessive about the question of a second referendum.

Because, if my 'leader' is evading debate and at least 2 Senior Government officials are evading major questions on a Treaty they say is of critical importance to this country then I start to get a little queasy and I wonder what else are they hiding.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

When, in your opinion, is it wrong for a Government to evade a question?

Possibly when it's a question for which they actually have a definitive answer; such as a question about something that happened in the past. Badgering a government for definitive answers as to exactly what they'll do in six months time and then crowing triumphantly about not getting a detailed response: that's kindergarten debating.

Because, if my 'leader' is evading debate and at least 2 Senior Government officials are evading major questions on a Treaty they say is of critical importance to this country then I start to get a little queasy and I wonder what else are they hiding.

What makes it a "major question"? That's just a re-frame, not an answer.

What difference does it make to you, here and now, whether or not the government will hold another referendum on this treaty?

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

When, in your opinion, is it wrong for a Government to evade a question?



Because, if my 'leader' is evading debate and at least 2 Senior Government officials are evading major questions on a Treaty they say is of critical importance to this country then I start to get a little queasy and I wonder what else are they hiding.

It sounds like your argument is based on paranoia and speculation to be honest.

Corben Dallas

So Meglome... U think think a Yes vote will give us more independent control over Ireland's Fiscal future directions?.... please enlighten us how a binding fiscal EU enforced Treaty will give us more Fiscal Policy freedom in years ahead.

Do u really think a Yes Vote will mean less direct control (via Berlin) on how Irish Governments run the economy with less stringent taxation etc ???/ LOL

Naive much?

beeftotheheels

Corben Dallas wrote: »

So Meglome... U think think a Yes vote will give us more independent control over Ireland's Fiscal future directions?.... please enlighten us how a binding fiscal EU enforced Treaty will give us more Fiscal Policy freedom in years ahead.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and guess that you've never heard of the six-pack or SGP or EDP? Am I wrong?

We don't have unhindered "Fiscal policy freedom" as things stand, so the notion that this treaty, as opposed to the fact that we have no money, as opposed to the fact that we made a mess of our economy, is what will cause austerity is risible.

AVN_1

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Ask yourself what does stability mean to you?

Stable economic growth, low unemployment, moderate public debt, balanced books, basically everything what we can't achieve by voting Yes on the referendum. Only No vote can achieve it. No to the Euro Zone.

AVN_1

beeftotheheels wrote: »

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?

We should leave the EU and possibly join the EFTA

meglome

Corben Dallas wrote: »

So Meglome... U think think a Yes vote will give us more independent control over Ireland's Fiscal future directions?.... please enlighten us how a binding fiscal EU enforced Treaty will give us more Fiscal Policy freedom in years ahead.

No a Yes vote will not give us more independent control over our fiscal future. But it will give us exactly the same independent control over our fiscal future as long as we keep our debt within agreed limits.
I'm almost amused that people see us having financial independence is a good thing in the first place. We have repeatedly used it to make a mess.

Corben Dallas wrote: »

Do u really think a Yes Vote will mean less direct control (via Berlin) on how Irish Governments run the economy with less stringent taxation etc ???/ LOL

As I said above we have same Fiscal rules in this treaty as we already have in our law now. They don't change.

Corben Dallas wrote: »

Naive much?

I'll tell you what is naive... Naive is when you think that 17 counties will sign up to something that actually gives Germany control of their finances. Wait is that naive or foolish or both... hmm. Is that what you think?